Kuldeep Singh vs Anupam Kaur on 20 September, 2017

265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.2628 of 2016 (OM)
Date of Decision : 20.09.2017

KULDEEP SINGH
….PETITIONER
VERSUS

ANUPAM KAUR
….RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Sonu Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Amardeep Singh Mann, Advocate
for the respondent.
—–

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, JUDGE (ORAL)

Present revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, filed at the hands of husband, is directed against the

order dated 15.02.2016, passed by the learned Family Court, whereby

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act moved by the

respondent-wife was allowed, directing the petitioner-husband to pay an

amount of Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, during

pendency of his divorce petition.

Notion of motion was issued.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the

petitioner is a big landlord. He is having 1/6th share in the land

measuring 748 kanals 11 marlas. He has also got 611/14667 share in the

land measuring 733 kanals 7 marlas. Further, he has also got 1/3rd share

1 of 3
24-09-2017 01:01:10 :::
265

in the land measuring 20 kanals 15 marlas. The land owned by the

petitioner is fertile agricultural land from which he would be earning

handsome income. Although, the respondent-wife is also serving, yet an

amount of Rs.12,000/- per month for the respondent-wife and Rs.3,000/-

per month for the minor child, total being Rs.15,000/- per month for two

persons cannot be said to be on higher side under any circumstances.

Having said that, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the learned

Family Court was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order,

the same deserves to be upheld.

In these days of sky rocketing prices, two persons cannot be

expected to live with any amount less than Rs.15,000/- a month, as

awarded by the learned Court below, particularly when the petitioner-

husband is having good source of income from his abovesaid agricultural

land. It is not even the pleaded or argued case of the petitioner that he is

unable to pay the amount awarded to the respondent-wife by way of

impugned order. It also goes without saying that the respondent-wife and

her child are also entitled to enjoy and maintain similar status of social

life as well as life style which is being enjoyed by the petitioner-husband.

In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order

passed by the learned Family Court and the same deserves to be upheld,

for this reason also.

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

2 of 3
24-09-2017 01:01:12 :::
265

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.

( RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK )
JUDGE
September 20, 2017
rajneesh

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

3 of 3
24-09-2017 01:01:12 :::

Leave a Comment

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