Raj Kumar vs Simmi And Ors on 12 October, 2017

CR No.7114 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR No.7114 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 12.10.2017

Raj Kumar
… Petitioner

Vs.

Simmi and others
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. J.S. Guru, Advocate
for the petitioner.

*******

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)

Instant civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the

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

dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby application under Section 24 read

with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, moved on behalf of respondent

No.1-wife and her children-respondents No.2 and 3 for grant of maintenance

pendente lite and litigation expenses, was allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is a matter of record that petitioner is working as Sweeper in

the Municipal Corporation. This seems to be the reason that since the

petitioner was not earning handsome income, a paltry amount of Rs.1200/- per

month was awarded as maintenance pendente lite to respondent No.1-wife and

Rs.1000/- each to the children-respondents No.2 and 3. Nothing could have

been imagined a lesser amount of maintenance than the one granted by the

1 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:27 :::
CR No.7114 of 2017 2

learned Court below, while passing the impugned order. Having said that, this

Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Family Court was well

within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be

upheld.

In these days of sky-rocketing prices, no one can be expected to

sustain himself/herself with an amount of less than Rs.1000/- per month. The

amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Court below to the

respondents is just the bare minimum amount and it cannot be said on higher

side by any stretch of imagination. It goes without saying that the petitioner-

husband is legally as well as morally bound to maintain his wife and children.

It is not the undue financial burden on the petitioner. Under these

circumstances of the case, 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,

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 passed by the learned Court below has been found based

on sound reasons and the same deserves 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 since no illegality or perversity has been found in the

impugned order, the same deserves to be upheld. The revision petition having

2 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:28 :::
CR No.7114 of 2017 3

been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance,

must fail. No ground 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 ]
12.10.2017 JUDGE
vishnu

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

3 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:28 :::

Leave a Comment

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