Shiny vs Rajinder Kumar on 15 May, 2017

CR-3207-2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

Civil Revision No.3207 of 2017
Date of decision: May 15, 2017

Shiny …Petitioner

Versus

Rajinder Kumar …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. J.C. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

Present revision petition is directed against the order dated

21.11.2016, passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby

application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by

petitioner has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order.

According to him, the court below has erroneously dismissed the

application. The respondent-husband is having monthly income of

Rs.50,000/-, thus, petitioner requires reasonable amount of maintenance.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that respondent-husband filed a petition under

Section 13 (i-a) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the

petitioner. During pendency of the petition, petitioner wife filed

application under section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite.

Respondent wife claimed that petitioner was earning handsomely. After

1 of 2
05-06-2017 10:14:37 :::
CR-3207-2017 2

considering rival contentions of the parties, trial court dismissed the

application, observing that petitioner had sufficient income to maintain

herself and thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite. I

find no infirmity with the order passed. A perusal of the impugned order

shows that petitioner wife had already received Rs.5.00 lacs as permanent

alimony from her previous husband while getting divorce. She also sold

a shop at Panipat and has kept the said amount in her fixed deposit.

READ  Syed Mustafa-vs-State, By Asst. Commissioner Of on 19 June, 2003

Thus, the court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner. The order under revision suffers from no infirmity. Revision

petition is, thus, dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
May 15, 2017
‘Rajpal’

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

2 of 2
05-06-2017 10:14:38 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *