HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4644/2018

Smt. Antima W/o Jitendra D/o Ramhetar, Aged About 24 Years,
By Caste Kallal, R/o Bagher, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar.—-Appellant

Versus

Jitendra S/o Kailashchand, By Caste Kallal, R/o Khedla, Presently Asanwar, District Jhalawar. —-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bal Ram Vashistha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, Adv.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI

Judgment 23/01/2019 D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.2084/2018:-

1. For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application is allowed.

D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.4644/2018:-

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. It is a case of self-goal by the appellant.

3. The husband i.e. the respondent has sued for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Appellant filed application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 19.07.2017 the same was disposed of directing monthly maintenance in sum of `4000/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. `150/- per Court hearing (2 of 3) [CMA-4644/2018] was also directed to be paid. One time litigation expenses in sum of `5000/- was directed to be paid.

4. The order dated 19.07.2017 was anchored on the fact that the respondent was a lawyer.

5. The order did not discuss the income of the respondent. He sought review pointing that while passing the order dated 19.07.2017 the Court has overlooked the fact that though a law graduate, respondent could not practice as a lawyer because when he filed the application seeking enrollment with the Bar Council of Rajasthan the appellant forwarded papers to the Bar Council showing that the respondent was an accused for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Due to this the Bar Council of Rajasthan did not enroll the respondent as an advocate. Order dated 12.06.2018 has noted said fact and has reached to the conclusion that because the respondent could not get himself enrolled as an advocate he is unable to practice.

6. The appellant failed to show respondent having any means of income.

7. The only material wherefrom some income of the respondent can be inferred is that he is helping a lawyer in his Chamber, but cannot appear in Court because he does not have any licence from the Bar Council to do so. The order dated 12.06.2018 has directed only `150/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant at each Court hearing.

8. In view of the fact that the appellant has no material to prima facie show the respondent earning any money, from the facts noted above the only inference the Court can draw would be that the Senior with whom the respondent works would give him (3 of 3) [CMA-4644/2018] some stipend and not a junior fee because the respondent cannot appear in Courts. The stipend would be meager.

9. The appellant resides with her parents and so thus the respondent. No child is born to the couple.

10. Under the circumstances we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.06.2018.

11. The appeal is dismissed.

(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)