ORDER
V.K. Agrawal, J.
1. Both these revisions are directed against the same impugned order dated 16th February, 2000 in Civil Suit No. 62-A of 1999 by IV Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and are, therefore, being disposed of together by this common order. Since the parties have inter-changed the position in both the above revisions, they would be mentioned in this order as petitioner/wife and respondent/husband.
2. Undisputably, the petitioner/wife Smt. Maninder Kaur filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short) against the respondent/husband for restitution of conjugal rights. In the said application she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. It was averred in the said application that the respondent/husband carries on business in the name of Adlib Associates, which is a registered firm. It was also averred that he earns more than Rs. 25,000/- per month from the said business. The petitioner/wife had no source of income and has to take the help of her parents for her subsistence. Maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 10,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed by the petitioner/wife.
3. The respondent/husband resisted the above application and though admitted that he is carrying on the business of the firm Adlib Associates, but it was denied that the income from the said business was Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was urged that the petitioner/wife is carrying on business in the name of Acme Enterprises and has an independent source of income of her own. It was prayed that the application of the petitioner/wife be dismissed.
4. The learned Trial Court made an enquiry into the said application under Section 24 of the Act and also recorded evidence. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court has granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 2,500/- per month and also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/- to the petitioner/wife.
5. The petitioner/wife has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the maintenance pendente lite and the litigation expenses as granted by the impugned order are too meagre and disproportionately low in view of the income of her husband, the respondent. While the respondent/husband has challenged the impugned order submitting that the sums granted as above are excessive and that it is beyond his means to pay the same.
6. It would be clear from the material and evidence placed on record that the respondent/husband is carrying on business in the name and Style of Adlib Associates. Though the respondent/husband filed a registration certificate of M/s. Acme Enterprises, which he alleged is a business being carried out by the petitioner/wife, but the said document does not disclose as to what is the income of the petitioner /wife from the said business. Moreover, the petitioner/wife has stated on oath that the said firm was opened by her husband, the respondent in order to facilitate him in taking tenders. It has also been stated by her that she did not enter into any transaction with regard to the said business. There is no reason to disbelieve her. Thus, there is no reliable evidence to show that the petitioner/wife has any independent source of income.
7. The respondent/husband has filed a copy of the acknowledgement of the income-tax return for the period 1999-2000 indicating that the net profit of his firm was Rs. 42,200/-. However, the details of the income being earned from the said firm have not been placed on record and copies of accounts have not been produced. Therefore, merely the acknowledgement of the income-tax return would not indicate that the total income of the respondent/husband was to the extent shown in the said return. It may be noticed in the above context that the respondent/ husband in his reply to the application, though has denied the averments of the petitioner/wife that his income is Rs. 25,000/- per month, but has not specified as to what his actual income is. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Trial Court that the income of the respondent/husband is much more than shown in the return does not appear to be unjustified.
8. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all relevant factors and has fixed the amount of interim maintenance at Rs. 2,500/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The sums awarded as above do not appear to be unjust or improper, in the circumstances of the case. No interference in the impugned order is called for.
9. Accordingly; both these revisions are dismissed.