JUDGMENT
Santosh Duggal, J.
(1) ADMIT.
(2) This revision petition is directed against an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the application of the respondentwife who is also respondent in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. The trial Court on the basis of the averments made by the respondent/wife and accepting the statements of both the partics as to their respective salaries and considering the circumstance that the petitioner/husband was maintaining the two children of the wedlock as also his old mother, thought it fit to grant a maintenance of Rs 250.00 p.m. with effect from 2nd May, 1989 which, I am informed, was the date of the application.
(3) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court passed the impugned order without there being sufficient material on record in support of what the applicant (respondent/wife) had pleaded as to her income, or in respect to deductions from the salary, by Installments of Rs. 260.00 p.m., which she alleged as being deducted from her salary of Rs. 300.00 and whether the alleged loan was in fact a house building advance, or whether any part of it had been taken by the petitioner.
(4) He parties were directed to file additional affidavits and documents in this Court and so far as petitioner is concerned, his total salary shown in the certificatre dated 9th May, 1991 issued by the Accounts Officer, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi is Rs. l,689.00 and afterdeduction of G.P.F. and other compulsory deductions, the net carry home salary is Rs. 1.183.00 . This includes the item of deduction against Gpf advance of Rs. 250.00 per month. The petitioner states that this amount was taken as loan for house building.
(5) The respondent has also filed certificates from her school in respect of her salary and deductions being made. Considering the totality of the circumstances I think it a fit case where appropriate order can be passed only by making the parties to adduce evidence before the Court in support of their respective contentions, and the Court should pass the order after only being satisfied as to the genuineness of the salary certificate issued by the school where the wife is working and also as to the existence and quantum of the loan and the purpose for which the said loan was taken and by whom, and what Installments are, as a matter of fact, being deducted, and how the school authorities, where the respondent is working, are concerned with the recovery. The petitioner (husband) shall also adduce evidence in support of his contention that he had no connection with the loan which the wife had allegedly taken and will also be entitled to lead evidence as to the expenditure on the education of the children, if any.
(6) As a result, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 27th July, 1989 is set aside as it was passed without proper material on record, with the result that the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, that was moved by the respondent/wife in the trial Court stands revived, which the trial Court is directed to dispose of within three months from the date the file is put up before him for the purpose.
(7) I am informed that the date now fixed in the main petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is 7th January, 1992. It would be appropriate that the application under Section 24 of the Act is taken up separately. It is, therefore, directed that a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court who shall have the file put up before it on 16th December, 1991 and fix the case for evidence of the parties In terms of this order. The parties and/or their Counsel shall appear before the trial Court on 16th December, 1991.
(8) It is directed that in meantime the petitioner shall continue to pay Rs. 150.00 p.m. as interim measure to the wife, which is subject to final order on merits and without prejudice to the respective contentions of the parties.
(9) The revision petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms… ……1st.