Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017
Date of Decision: 29.08.2017

Deepak Suri
……Petitioner

Vs

Neha Suri
….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ameet Awasthi, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. This revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the

District Judge, Panchkula whereby an amount of Rs.32,000/-

per month was awarded towards maintenance pendente lite

from the date of filing the application and an amount of

Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife.

[2]. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a petition under

Section 13 (i)(a), (i)(b), (iii)of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short

‘the Act’) for grant of decree of divorce. In the said petition, the

1 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:04 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 2

respondent Neha Suri filed an application under Section 24 of

the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation

expenses. It was contended by the respondent that a female

child took birth from the wedlock, who was under the care and

custody of respondent. The minor child was suffering from

‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and was a school going

child. It was further pleaded by the respondent that earlier she

was working in a private company and in May, 2016, she lost

her job and since then she was unemployed and has no source

of income to maintain herself and her minor ailing child.

Petitioner is a qualified engineer and is working as Deputy

Manager Application Engineering in M/s Borg Warner Emissions

Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon and was earning Rs.18 lacs

per annum. With these pleadings, the respondent claimed

maintenance to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per month, besides

litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Since the female child was

suffering from ‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and was

under treatment, an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month was

claimed towards her treatment, education and clothing etc.

Besides claiming the aforesaid amount, the respondent also

claimed rental to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.

[3]. The aforesaid application was contested by the

petitioner on the ground that the respondent is gainfully

2 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 3

employed in a private company and was earning Rs.8 lacs per

annum.

[4]. From the pleadings and material on record, the Court

below found that the average salary of the petitioner was

Rs.75,000/- per month approximately after deductions. The

respondent by way of her affidavit stated that she remained in

job till April 2016 and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but

since then she was umemployed. The petitioner could not

contradict the aforesaid assertion made by the respondent by

way of affidavit..

[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon

Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 340 DB

Delhi contended that when the wife is found to be qualified and

in job for some time, then she is not entitled to any interim

maintenance.

[6]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

by relying upon Ruchi Rai Sehmbey and Ors. vs. Simon

Jason Sehmbey @ Haminder Sehmbey, 2013(43) R.C.R.

(Civil) 673 DB Delhi contended that if the wife is unemployed

and her employment was in existence some times ago and if

there is no material on record that to show that she is likely to

get employment in near future, then her previous status cannot

3 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 4

debar her from claiming maintenance pendente lite.

[7]. I have considered the rival submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the

respondent wife was in employment till April 2016 and she was

earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but thereafter she is not in

employment. She has executed an affidavit to this effect which

has not been controverted by way of any cogent material by the

petitioner. The ratio of Rupali Gupta’s case (supra) cannot be

applied to the instant case as in the said case, the wife was

found to be in employment at the time of filing of the application

and that is why the interim maintenance was not granted in her

favour by the Court. The grant of maintenance is to prevent

vagrancies and destitution of the wife.

[8]. In the instant case, the ailing female child is suffering

from ‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and requires huge

amount to be spent towards her treatment and education. The

earlier employment of the respondent-wife cannot be

considered for debarring her from claiming maintenance

pendente lite.

[9]. In view of facts and circumstances of present case

where a child is suffering such an ailment which requires

constant care and custody of the minor. The child is 10 years of

4 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 5

age and studying in 4th class. The said status of the child would

also requires healthy amount to be spent on her education.

Keeping in view the earning capacity of the petitioner, it cannot

be said that an award of Rs.32,000/- per month towards

maintenance pendente lite and amount of Rs.20,000/- towards

litigation expenses are on the higher side. The amount of

Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order

dated 05.04.2017 is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent

by moving an appropriate application in the aforesaid context.

[10]. In view of above, I do not see any error of jurisdiction in

the impugned order passed by the Courts below. This revision

petition is accordingly dismissed.

August 29, 2017 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

5 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::