IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 359 of 2007 BRAHM DEV ANAND @ BITTU SINGH Versus SULEKHA DEVI @ SIKHA DEVI & ANOTHER 03/ 06.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.This petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. This Civil Revision has been filed by the applicant- petitioner challenging order dated 25.01.2007, passed in Divorce Case No.18 of 1999, by which the learned Principal Judge, Siwan, directed him to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.1000.00 per month within first week of each succeeding month and also to pay litigation expenses in one lump sum to the tune of Rs.5,000.00. The petitioner was also directed to pay arrears of the aforesaid interim maintenance in five equal consecutive monthly instalments with the first instalment payable within a month from the date of this order to opposite party no.1. The aforesaid case was filed by the petitioner under the provision of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) for passing a decree of divorce in respect of his marriage with opposite party no.1 which, according to him, was - 2 - solemnized on 12.05.1997. The defendant-opposite party appeared in the case and filed a petition on 24.08.2000 under the provision of section 24 of the Act for awarding maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.5,000.00 per month and also for awarding litigation cost to the tune of Rs.25,000.00. The said petition has been partly allowed by the learned court below by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order in the instant Civil Revision claiming that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner had sufficient income to pay such amount and the learned court below has found that he is not having an independent business concern of his own. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner is paying Rs.250.00 per month as maintenance to opposite party no.1 as per order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Maintenance Case No. 60 of 1999 and hence, according to the petitioner, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and is fit to be set aside. The learned court below having considered the matter in detail has found that opposite party no.1 has - 3 - claimed that the petitioner is having an automobile shop at Siwan and earns Rs.1 lac per annum from the said shop and he is also having 10 bighas of land and earns Rs.40,000.00 per annum from the said land and furthermore and he is having a big residential house at Siwan and has kept five tenants in it and earns Rs.60,000.00 per annum as rent from it. These facts were denied by the petitioner stating that he is an unemployed educated person and has no means to maintain himself and is fully dependent upon his father and he is maintained by him. He further submits that the shop mentioned by opposite party no.1 is a small shop run by his father and is not in flourishing condition and yields meager income of Rs.10,000.00 per annum and his father and grand father has possessed only two bighas of land at village Kapiya Jagir which is not fertile and his mother is possessing a small residential house over one katha of land which yields only Rs.775.00 per month as rent. He further submits that on the other hand opposite party no.1 earns a lot by private teaching, but this fact was denied by opposite party no.1, as baseless. Learned court below has specifically found from - 4 - the perusal of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner that he resides with his father’s joint family and has been savouring the income of the said family which, as per the admission of the petitioner, is possessing an automobile shop at Siwan, two bighas of land at village Kapiya Jagir and a house in Siwan. It was also found by the learned court below that the petitioner has also admitted in paragraph 10 the factum of possessing shop by his father at Rajendra Path, Siwan. The learned court below has also found that the petitioner has admitted in paragraph 14 that he is the only son of his parents. It was also found that the petitioner is an able bodied man, hence he cannot be expected to have no income to support his wife. Considering the aforesaid facts and also considering that Rs.250.00 is already being paid to opposite party no.1 by the petitioner, the learned court below did not allow the claim of opposite party no.1 for maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000.00 per month and cost of litigation in one lump sum to the tune of Rs.25,000.00 and directed a small sum of Rs.1000.00 only to be paid per month as interim maintenance and Rs.5000.00 as litigation cost. - 5 - In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this Civil Revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )