Anil Kumar vs Suman Rani on 9 August, 2017

CR No.6678 of 2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.6678 of 2015
Date of Decision : 9.08.2017.

Anil Kumar

……Petitioner
Versus

Suman Rani

…… Respondent

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

month.

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

dismissed.

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 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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