Lakhwinder Singh vs Palwinder Kaur And Ors on 3 October, 2017

CR 6794 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
-.-

CR 6794 of 2017
Date of decision: 03.10.2017

Lakhwinder Singh …….. Petitioner
Versus
Palwinder Kaur and others …….Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
-.-

Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate
for the petitioner
-.-

Rekha Mittal, J. (Oral)

The present petition directs challenge against order dated

22.08.2017 (Annexure P4) passed by the Additional District Judge,

Hoshiarpur whereby application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ‘HMA’) for grant of maintenance pendente lite

has been allowed and respondent No.1 has been allowed maintenance @

Rs.25,000.00 per month and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.00.

Counsel for the petitioner, in line, with the contentions

recorded in para 7 of the impugned order would argue that a kothi worth

Rs.40,00,000.00 situated at Dasuya belonging to the petitioner is in

possession of the respondent-wife. The respondent is in possession of

Rs.20,00,000.00 in cash that belongs to the petitioner. Therefore, she is not

entitled to get maintenance.

The trial Court has noticed in para 7 of the impugned order that

the aforesaid averments raised by the petitioner have been denied by the

1 of 2
08-10-2017 00:44:47 :::
CR 6794 of 2017 2

other side. Counsel, on a query by the Court, has failed to point out any

materials on record to substantiate plea of the petitioner that the respondent

wife is having Rs.20,00,000.00 with her, sufficient to negate her plea that

she has got no source of income to maintain herself. Counsel has not

disputed that two children born out of the wedlock of the parties are

studying in Cambridge International School Dasuya and monthly fee of the

children is Rs.12,000.00 besides other expenses. Under the circumstances, I

do not find any patent error much less illegality in the impugned order

allowing maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.25,000.00 per month.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed in limine.

(Rekha Mittal)
Judge

03.10.2017
mohan bimbra
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
08-10-2017 00:44:48 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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