Amandeep Kaur vs Manpreet Singh on 15 November, 2017

CR No.7983 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.7983 of 2017(OM)

Date of decision: 15.11.2017

Amandeep Kaur …..Petitioner

VERSUS

Manpreet Singh …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

REKHA MITTAL, J.(Oral)

The present petition directs challenge against order dated

13.09.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bathinda whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act’) for grant of maintenance

pendente lite and litigation expenses has been dismissed.

The respondent-husband has filed a petition under Section 9

of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights wherein the petitioner- wife

filed the application under Section 24 of the Act praying for interim

maintenance and litigation expenses. Counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that though the petitioner is working as a Constable in Punjab

Police and drawing salary of Rs.37,000/- per month but as the respondent-

husband is earning Rs.50,000/- by doing job as a Teacher and tuition work,

the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance.

Another submission made by counsel is that father of the

respondent is doing job in Fire Brigade, earning Rs.45,000/- per month and

his brother is doing job in Police Department. It is further argued that as

1 of 2
20-11-2017 01:10:39 :::
CR No.7983 of 2017 (OM) 2

the petitioner-wife is entitled to enjoy the same amenities of life as she

would have had she been residing with the husband, she is entitled to get

interim maintenance.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paper-

book particularly the order impugned but find that the petition is devoid of

merit and deserves to be rejected.

The petitioner is admittedly working as a Constable in Punjab

Police at a salary of Rs.37,000/- per month. There is nothing on record

suggestive of the fact that she has any other obligation except to maintain

herself. There is no child out of the wedlock. The trial Court has noted

that petitioner has failed to substantiate her plea that the respondent-

husband is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner

would inform that the respondent-husband has filed an application under

Section 24 of the Act for claiming maintenance from the petitioner. It

appears to the Court that the present petition has been filed by the

petitioner with an intent that she may not be burdened with maintenance

payable to the husband. However, there is no apparent error in the order

impugned as would call for intervention.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed in limine.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
‘D. Gulati’ JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : yes/no

Whether reportable : yes/no

2 of 2
20-11-2017 01:10:40 :::

Leave a Comment

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