CR-6322 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
122 CR-6322 of 2017
Date of Decision:18.09.2017
Jaspal Sampla …..Petitioner
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK.
Present: Mr.Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.(Oral)
Petitioner-husband has approached this Court by way of instant
civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-4),
whereby learned matrimonial court allowed the application of the
respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short “the
Act”), directing the petitioner-husband to pay `10,000/- per month as
maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, in addition to `15,000/-
as litigation expenses.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner-husband is pursuing this proxy litigation through his
special power of attorney, namely, Sh.Shingara Ram. As pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner-husband is residing in Portugal
for the last more than five years. He came to India only to perform marriage
1 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:41 :::
CR-6322 of 2017 2
with the respondent and after some time again left for Portugal. It seems
that the parties could not pull on for long and the petitioner-husband filed a
divorce-petition, which is being tried by the learned NRI Court. It was
during pendency of the divorce-petition that the respondent-wife moved an
application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite
claiming `25,000/- per month. Application moved by the respondent-wife
was allowed by the learned court below vide impugned order dated
01.08.2017, directing the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of `10,000/-
per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, in addition
to `15,000/- as litigation expenses. The bare perusal of the impugned order
passed by the learned court below will make it crystal clear that the
impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality and the same
deserves to be upheld.
It is not even the argued case on behalf of the petitioner before
this Court as well, that petitioner is unable to pay an amount of `10,000/-
per month to the respondent-wife. Further, in these days of sky-rocketing
prices, an amount of `10,000/- per month cannot be said to be on higher
side in spite of the fact that the respondent-wife was also found earning an
amount of `13,000/- per month. It is so said because the respondent-wife is
also entitled to enjoy the same life style and social status as the petitioner-
husband is enjoying. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded
that the learned court below committed no error of law, while passing the
impugned order 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
passed by the learned court below, which may warrant interference at the
2 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:43 :::
CR-6322 of 2017 3
hands of this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order has been found based
on sound reasons and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well.
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 the 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 above-said observations made, instant
revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
September 18, 2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:43 :::