IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No. 148 of 2008 Raghwendra Kumar Shukla @ Raghwendra Kumar @ Pintu Sharma son of Ramayan Sharma, resident of village Sheikhpura, P.S. Naubatpur, District Patna………Applicant-Petitioner. Versus Smt. Soni Devi wife of Sri Raghwendra Kumar Shukla @ Pintu, daughter of Sri Bharat Sharma, resident of village Khapuri, P.S. Dulhin Bazar (Bikram), District Patna. …………Opposite Party-Opposite Party. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the opp.parties : M/s Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate and Prabhat Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 06/ 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party. This petition has been filed by the applicant-petitioner challenging order dated 05.12.2007 by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna allowed the petition of the opposite party under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000.00 per month towards interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition as well as a sum of Rs.5,000.00 as litigation cost. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the husband of the opposite party and had filed Matrimonial Case No.46 of 2005 under section 13 of the Act for dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party on the grounds of incurable disease, which she had been carrying prior to her marriage as well as cruel behaviour towards the petitioner. 2 During the pendency of the case the opposite party filed the aforesaid petition under the provision of section 24 of the Act, which was opposed by the petitioner stating that in fact he was suffering from incurable mental disease and has no income of his own and hence he is unable to pay any amount of maintenance. The said objection of the petitioner has been disbelieved by the learned court below, which allowed the petition of the opposite party under section 24 of the Act as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises two objections against the impugned order. The first was that the learned court below assumed without any material that the petitioner must have some earnings for his livelihood although there was absolutely no material to support the said claim. The second point raised by the petitioner was that the learned court below did not disbelieve the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner but in spite of that the claim of the opposite party was allowed. These contentions have been contested by learned counsel for the opposite party. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned order it is quite apparent that the admitted facts are that the petitioner and the opposite party were married and the opposite party was living with her father separately from the petitioner, who was not looking after her and had filed the case for dissolution of his marriage. The learned court below after considering the pleadings 3 and evidence adduced on behalf of the parties specifically found that opposite party had no source of income of her own and she was fully dependent on her husband for her livelihood. So far the claim of the petitioner that he is mentally ill and has no source of income is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has studied up to B.A. and he is an able bodied person but the claim of the petitioner is that he is mentally ill. It is quite apparent that the petitioner himself deposed as PW.1 and the learned court below did not find from his deposition that he was mentally ill. Furthermore, the petitioner has himself filed this civil revision and has executed vakaltnama and has also sworn affidavit of this case. Had he been mentally sick he could not have done that and would have come through his guardian but that is not so, rather it appears from his signature that he has a good handwriting and has admittedly studied up to B.A. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the petitioner is not suffering from any such ailment, which could be an obstacle in earning his livelihood. On the other hand, the opposite party had specifically claimed in her pleadings that the petitioner earned about Rs.7,000.00 to 8,000.00 per month from purchase and sale of food grains and the said statement had been supported by evidence, although denied by the petitioner and in addition to that the families of the petitioner had got 5 to 6 Bighas of land for their said purpose. Apart from that the petitioner is an able bodied person having studied up to B.A., which fact has not been denied by him and hence he has the liability 4 to bear the maintenance of his wife as per the settled principle of law. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)