CR No.6678 of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CR No.6678 of 2015
Date of Decision : 9.08.2017.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.C. Dhaula, Advocate for the respondent.
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)
Husband is in revision against the order, dated 6.5.2015,
rendered by the District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, vide which, the
respondent-wife was awarded maintenance pendente lite at `3,500/- per
month and a sum of `5,500/- were awarded as litigation expenses.
Respondent-wife had filed a petition for dissolution of marriage
on the ground of cruelty. She claimed a sum of `15,000/- per month by way
of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
and `20,000/- as litigation expenses. The positive case set out by her is that
she does not own or possess any property nor had any independent source of
income. And, although, she with her three minor children was residing in
the same house as the petitioner, but they were not on talking terms with
him. Further, the petitioner-husband was employed in a private company at
1 of 3
12-08-2017 13:09:28 :::
CR No.6678 of 2015 -2-
Dhigawa Mandi and was drawing a sum of `30,000/- per month as salary.
In reply to the application moved by the respondent-wife, the
petitioner maintained that all the three children were school going and were
living with him. Whereas, the respondent-wife was living separately on her
own volition. He denied that he was earning a sum of `30,000/- per
Nothing was brought on record by the petitioner to show that
the respondent-wife indeed owned or possessed any movable or immovable
property. No credible material was brought on record either to show that
she had any independent source of income or was engaged any profitable
avocation. And this was the case of the petitioner himself that she was
living separately and not with the petitioner in her matrimonial home.
Whereas the petitioner-husband was alleged to have been drawing `30,000/-
per month. Not just that, in the grounds of revision, it is his own case that
he was employed in a private company on a responsible position. Needless
to assert the petitioner-husband was/is under a legal and moral obligation to
maintain his wife, who apparently had no means to support herself. Thus,
on a consideration of the matter the learned District Judge (Family Court)
deemed just and appropriate to award `3,500/- per month to the respondent-
wife by way of maintenance pendente lite to meet her daily expenses. On
being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as
to how the conclusion arrived at by the District Judge is either contrary to
the record or suffered from any material illegality.
2 of 3
12-08-2017 13:09:29 :::
CR No.6678 of 2015 -3-
That being so, the only and the inevitable conclusion that could
be reached is that the petition is wholly devoid of merit is accordingly
09.08.2017 (ARUN PALLI)
Manoj Bhutani JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
12-08-2017 13:09:29 :::