CR No.3291 of 2017 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CR No. 3291 of 2017(OM)
Date of decision :03.07.2017
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH
Present: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
DARSHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Patiala, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente lite and
litigation expenses has been allowed and petitioner has been directed to pay
a sum of ` 5000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent and
both the children from the date of the application. He has also been directed
to pay a sum of ` 5000/- as one time litigation expenses.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner
was only a casual labourer. His income was not more than ` 5000/- per
month. The learned trial Court has wrongly taken the income of the
petitioner to be ` 10,000/- per month. He further contended that respondent
herself is a trained tailor and is earning sufficient income to maintain
herself. The labour work is not available to the petitioner for all the days.
Thus, he pleaded that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned
trial Court is highly excessive.
1 of 3
08-07-2017 23:03:30 :::
CR No.3291 of 2017 (OM) 2
3. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.
4. As per the averments in the application moved by the
respondent-wife, the petitioner is an able bodied person. He is working as a
contractor and is also running the Ration Depot as well as Karyana Store.
He is also doing the business of property dealer and he earns ` 4 lac per
month. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid application, he
has denied his financial status as pleaded by the respondent-wife. Rather, he
pleaded that he is a labourer and even the labour work is not available on all
the days. He is not running any Ration Depot as the said Ration Depot was
in the name of his father and after his death, the same has been cancelled by
the Competent Authority.
5. Admittedly, the respondent-wife has not placed on file any
documentary evidence to establish the income of the petitioner. But, there is
no denial to the fact that the petitioner is an able bodied person. He can
sufficiently earn even by doing the labour work. It cannot be disputed that
now a days even an unskilled labourer can earn ` 300-350/- per day. So,
there is nothing wrong in the income of the petitioner taken by the learned
trial Court to be ` 10,000/- to ` 12,000/- per month.
6. There is no material on record to show that the respondent-wife
has any independent source to maintain herself. Thus, the petitioner was
morally and legally bound to maintain his wife and children. The learned
trial Court has awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of ` 5000/- per
month for the respondent-wife and her two children, which cannot be stated
to be excessive or on the higher side. Particularly, keeping in view the fact
that two children born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and
respondent are also residing with the respondent-wife.
2 of 3
08-07-2017 23:03:32 :::
CR No.3291 of 2017 (OM) 3
7. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffers from any
illegality or legal infirmity which can warrant any interference by this Court.
8. Resultantly, the present revision petition having no merits, is
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
08-07-2017 23:03:32 :::