Jasvir Singh vs Amandeep Kaur on 11 September, 2017

CR No. 6127 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 6127 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 11.9.2017

Jasvir Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

Amandeep Kaur

…..Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present : Mr.Gurpreet Jayia, Advocate
for the petitioner.

****

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 28.7.2017 (Annexure

P-1) passed by the learned trial court granting an amount of `7,500/- per

month as maintenance pendente lite to the minor son of the petitioner, who is

living with his mother-respondent, petitioner has approached this court by

way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, for setting aside the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

During pendency of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short), filed by the petitioner-husband, an

application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the respondent-wife for

granting maintenance pendente lite. Since the respondent-wife was also

found working, an amount of `7,500/-per month was granted in favour of

1 of 3
17-09-2017 17:34:31 :::
CR No. 6127 of 2017 (OM) 2

the minor son only for his maintenance, who is admittedly staying with his

mother-respondent. Petitioner-husband is working as Assistant Sub Inspector

in Punjab Police and his monthly salary is more than `50,000/-. Even if the

argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that

respondent-wife is also working as a Teacher, still an amount of `7,500/- per

month granted to the minor cannot be said to be on higher side by any

stretch of imagination. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to

conclude that the learned court below committed no error of law, while

passing the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld.

Coming to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000 AIR (SC) 1398, relied

upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no dispute about the

observations made therein. However, on a close perusal of the cited

judgment, it has not been found to be of any help to the petitioner, being

distinguishable on facts. It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of

each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before

applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of

even one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference,

as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmausundara Rao and

another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533, Union of

India Vs. Amrit Lal Manchanda and others, 2004 (3) SCC 75, State of

Orissa Vs. Md. Illiyas, 2006 (1) SCC 275 and State of Rajasthan VS.

Ganeshi Lal, 2008 (2) SCC 533.

There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition that it

is the duty of both husband and wife to share their financial responsibility in

bringing up the children if both are working. This seems to be the reason

2 of 3
17-09-2017 17:34:32 :::
CR No. 6127 of 2017 (OM) 3

that the learned court below did not grant any maintenance pendente lite in

favour of the wife and it was granted only in favour of the minor child. Since

the impugned order has been found factually correct and legally justified, no

fault can be found with the same and it deserves to be upheld.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

could not point out any patent illegality or perversity 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 has been found duly supported by sound reasons

and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.

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 present revision petition is misconceived, bereft of

merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference

has been made out.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant

revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

11.9.2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
Ak Sharma JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
17-09-2017 17:34:32 :::

Leave a Comment

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