It was not the intention of the Legislature that the applicant should be penniles person to ask for maintenance
Learned Counsel for the respondent S. Meja Singh Sadhu has further referred to other evidence produced in the case to indicate that Gurveen Kaur was having source of income. Reference has been made to copy of the First Information Report which was filed by Gurveen Kaur before the Police which was produced in the case (page 53 of the record). There was a reference in this report that there was one Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 25,000 with her. The other fact pointed, out is that few days before she left the house, she had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000 from the joint account of the parties. Since there is no dispute regarding the said item I need not mention to the evidence. The other fact pointed out is that she has been earning a sum of Rs. 292 per month towards interest from Canara Bank which would indicate that she had substantial amount in the Fixed Deposit. A certificate of the Canara Bank was produced (page 43 of the record). At the time the parties separated; Gurveen Kaur was not practising. This was after few months of the marriage. Thereafter Gurveen Kaur delivered a female child and by the time she filed application under Section 24 of the Act, as per her affidavit, she had spent the amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipt as well as the sum of Rs. 10,000 which was withdrawn from the joint account and thus she had no other source of income. Mere existence of Fixed Deposit Receipt or immovably property will not be sufficient to deny the claim of the spouse for maintenance pendente lite. It was not the intention of the Legislature that the applicant should be penniles person to ask for maintenance. What Section 24 requires is that there should be independent source of income. In the present case since Gurveen Kaur had filed an affidavit that she had spent the sum of Rs. 35,000 as detailed above. The only other evidence of income which has been produced is of a sum of Rs. 292 per month interest on some amount which may also belying to her credit. It is only the interest which can be treated as source of income available to her month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurveen Kaur vs Ranjit Singh Sandhu on 12 April, 1990
Equivalent citations: I (1992) DMC 49, (1990) 98 PLR 148
