CR No.3958 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CR No.3958 of 2017
Date of decision: 31.05.2017
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. Atul Nathalia, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)
Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the learned matrimonial Court, granting an amount of Rs.2,000/- per
month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, husband has
approached this Court by way of instant civil revision petition under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the impugned order.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that only an amount of
Rs.2,000/- per month has been granted to the respondent-wife, by allowing her
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, during pendency of the
divorce petition filed by the petitioner-husband. The impugned order is just an
interim order, which shall be co-terminus with the proceedings of the divorce
petition. So far as the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is concerned, it is the bare
minimum amount, which would be required for sustenance of the respondent-
1 of 3
10-06-2017 07:28:48 :::
CR No.3958 of 2017 -2-
wife. Nothing could be more reasonable than Rs.2,000/- per month. Having said
that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned matrimonial Court
committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the same
deserves to be upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner-
husband is ready and willing to take home his wife-respondent. If that is so,
nobody will come in his way, if the petitioner-husband is sincere in his efforts to
settle the matter amicably. Let him approach and persuade his wife to come along
with him, with a view to stay in the matrimonial home. Let the petitioner-husband
assure his wife about her comfortable stay in her matrimonial home. Further, in
case the petitioner needs any counselling or mediation, he would be at liberty to
move the learned matrimonial Court in this regard. So far as the impugned order is
concerned, it is based on sound reasons and no fault can be found with it, thus, the
impugned order deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
Under no circumstances, the impugned order can be said to be
contrary to the facts or suffering from any patent illegality. Learned counsel for
the petitioner could not point out any such illegality in the impugned order, which
may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its revisional
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the impugned
order is a self-contained and well justified order, which deserves to be upheld, for
this reason as well.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted
above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered
view that since no illegality has been found in the impugned order passed by the
2 of 3
10-06-2017 07:28:50 :::
CR No.3958 of 2017 -3-
learned matrimonial Court, the same deserves to be upheld. The revision petition
having been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any
substance, must fail. No ground for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, present revision
petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ]
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
10-06-2017 07:28:50 :::