Sunil Kumar vs Rajni Bala on 16 November, 2017

CR-8027-2017 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR-8027-2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 16.11.2017

SUNIL KUMAR …Petitioner

Versus

RAJNI BALA …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present : Mr. Rapton, Advocate for the petitioner.

****
REKHA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The present petition directs challenge against order dated

13.09.2017 (Annexure P4) passed by the Additional District Judge,

Bathinda whereby maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.4000/- per month from

the date of application and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses has been

allowed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘the

Act’), in pending petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-

husband has sought divorce by raising allegation that the respondent-wife

is living in adultery and the alleged adulterer has also been impleaded as

respondent No.2 in the petition under Section 13 of the Act, therefore, the

respondent-wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The second submission

made by counsel is that the respondent is working in a private school and

taking tuition classes thereby earning Rs.15,000/- per month, sufficient for

1 of 2
22-11-2017 23:02:38 :::
CR-8027-2017 (OM) -2-

maintaining herself. The plea of the respondent that the petitioner is

running a sanitary shop and working as property dealer, thus earning Rs.20

lakh per annum is not found correct by the Court below but still the Court

has allowed maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month.

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

particularly the order impugned.

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly informed that there is no

material on record to prima facie establish plea of the petitioner that the

respondent-wife is gainfully employed much less earning Rs.15,000/- per

month. The plea with regard to the respondent-wife living in adultery is a

question of evidence yet to be adduced by the parties. The trial Court has

awarded maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month which may not suffice to

meet day to day needs of the respondent what to talk of providing her with

comforts and luxuries, when otherwise in law the husband has an

obligation to provide adequate maintenance to his wife. In this view of the

matter, I do not find any error much less illegality in the impugned order

warranting intervention.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. However, nothing stated hereinbefore shall be construed as an

expression of opinion on merits of the case.

16.11.2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
ashok JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes / No
Whether reportable: Yes / No

2 of 2
22-11-2017 23:02:39 :::

Leave a Comment

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