JUDGMENT
C.C. Gupta., J.
1. With the consent of the parties, the revision itself is heard and decided finally by this order.
2. Non-applicant husband has filed a suit at Bilaspur seeking declaration Under Section 12(1)(d) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to the effect that the marriage between them was a nullity. The applicant-wife filed an application praying maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/~ per month together with Rs. 1000/- as expense. The learned Judge, taking into consideration of facts and circumstances as available, granted Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 800/- as litigation expenses. It is this order which is impugned in the present civil revision.
3. From the documents filed by the parties, it appears that the applicant had in her application dated 1.12.92 claimed Rs. 500/- per month so maintenance and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses. It however appears that she filed yet another application on 11.1.93 and claimed expenses amount of Rs. 2,000/- on the ground that she has to incur expenses in travelling from Raigarh to Bilaspur on each date of hearing alongwith amount. This application does not seem to have been taken into consideration by the learned Judges and hence is canvassed on a ground and impugned the same in this revision.
4. There is a finding recorded by the learned Judge in the impugned order itself that the non-applicant is employed as a teacher and receives Rs. 1625/- p.m. as salary after all permissible deduction. There is also a finding that the applicant does not have any means of livelihood and at the present is living with her parents and depending on their support. Considering the present price structure and income of the non-applicant, demand for maintenance Rs. 500/- p.m. does not appear to be unreasonable or unjustified. Learned Judge has not given any reason why he was not accepting the said claim. It is true that the learned Judge has the discretion in the matter but the discretion is judicious and has to be exercised on sound reasonings. In the instant case, the exercise of discretion being unrelatable to the earning of the non-applicant the same cannot be accepted as correct. The demand of the applicant for Rs. 500/- p.m. must be held to be justified not only in the context of price structure today but also in the context of the earning of the non-applicant. The amount of maintenance to therefore increased from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- p.m. Revision succeeds to that extent.
5. The learned Counsel for the applicant also claimed Rs. 2000/-as expenses and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Anita v. Laxmi Narayan, AIR 1992 SC 1953 to submit that where the wife is required to undertake long journey to appear in the Court to contest the suit for divorce, it is the obligation of the Court to provide necessary sum of her to meet the said obligation. There can be no defect with the proposition. The litigation expenses should necessarily include expenses to be incurred on journey and other such process of litigation. In the instant case, the applicant had herself originally demanded Rs. 1000/- only. It is true that she has subsequently filed another application enhancing her claim to Rs. 2000/-. But there is no explanation as to why this could not have been submitted in the first application itself. It is not as if she was not required to undertake journey earlier. Then, there is also the dispute about her place of stay at the present. According to the learned Counsel for the non-applicant, she is staying at Village Bilha and not at Raigarh. The impugned order itself indicate that earlier she was working at Raigarh and therefore she had submitted that she has to travel from Raigarh to Bilaspur. In the plaint, her address appears to be of Village Bilha. The distance between Bilha and Bilaspur is not comparable with the distance in the case before the Supreme Court and therefore even though the principle laid down in the Supreme Court would be applicable in every case, it would furnish on ground for claiming the amount of travel as claimed by the applicant. But considering the fact that she had to appear in this Court and file this revision, some enhancement in the litigation expenses is justified. Under the circumstances Rs. 800/- awarded to her is increased to Rs. 1000/- as originally demanded by her.
6. Revision consequently succeeds and is allowed by enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- p.m. and litigation expenses from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1000/-, all other conditions remaining the same, C.C. on payment.