CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CR No. 2887 of 2017(OM)
Date of decision :05.07.2017
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
DARSHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the respondent-
wife has been awarded the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of ` 4000/-
per month from the date of filing the application. He has also been directed
to pay a sum of ` 5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Petitioner-husband has filed the petitioner under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘Act’) for dissolution of the
marriage by decree of divorce. During the pendency of the petition,
respondent-wife filed the application under Section 24 of the Act for grant
of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses alleging therein that
the petitioner-husband is an able bodied person. He is serving as a driver in
Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and getting more than ` 40,000/- per month
as salary. His income from all sources is ` 60,000/- per month. He has
wilfully neglected the respondent-wife. The petitioner is duty bound to
maintain the respondent-wife. She has prayed for grant of maintenance
pendente lite at the rate of ` 15,000/- per month from the date of filing the
1 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:43 :::
CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 2
application and ` 30,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The said application was contested by the present petitioner. He
denied his income as pleaded by the respondent-wife and further pleaded
that in-fact the salary of the petitioner is about ` 8000/- per month. He has
to maintain himself, his two minor sons and 83 years old bed ridden father.
He also pleaded that respondent-wife is matriculate. She is skilled in
tailoring, embroidery and knitting. She is doing work of beauty parlour and
is earning ` 30,000/- per month.
4. Learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur allowed the
application filed by the respondent-wife vide impugned order dated
14.02.2017 and awarded the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of
` 4000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing the
application. ` 5500/- were awarded towards litigation expenses.
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petition has
5. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner is working as a driver with Punjab Roadways
on contract basis. His salary is only ` 8000/- per month. He has to maintain
two minor sons and old father. He further contended that respondent-wife
has independent source of income. She is matriculate. She knows tailoring,
embroidery and knitting and is earning more than ` 30,000/- per month. She
is able to maintain herself. So, she is not entitled for grant of any
6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
7. This fact is not disputed that respondent is the legally wedded
wife of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner in the reply that the
2 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:45 :::
CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 3
respondent-wife is a matriculate. She knows tailoring, embroidery and
knitting and is earning more than ` 30,000/- per month. But, no material to
support these allegations have been brought on record. Thus, there is
nothing to conclude that the respondent-wife has any independent source of
income to maintain herself.
8. This fact is not disputed that petitioner-husband is working as a
driver with Punjab Roadways. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that he is working only on contract basis and his salary is
` 8000/- per month. But, the petitioner has not brought on record his salary
certificate to substantiate his plea. The petitioner has also not brought on
record any material to show that he is working as a driver with Punjab
Roadways only on contract basis. So, the petitioner has withheld the
material documents with respect to his salary and status. Thus, there is no
escape to presume that his salary will be much more than pleaded by him.
9. The learned trial Court has awarded the maintenance
pendente lite only at the rate of ` 4000/- per month from the date of filing
the application and ` 5500/- as litigation expenses, which cannot be stated
to be excessive or on higher side.
10. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffers from any
illegality or legal infirmity which can warrant any interference by this Court.
11. Resultantly, the present revision petition having no merits, is
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:45 :::