129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

RA-CR No.56-CII of 2018 (OM) in
CR No.2211 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : March 19, 2018

Amanpreet Kaur ……. Petitioner

Versus

Kanwalvir Singh Kang and another ……. Respondent No.1/applicant

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

Present:- Applicant-respondent No.1 in person along with
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate.

1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?

KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)

Heard.

Applicant-respondent No.1 is seeking review of the order dated

17.02.2018 passed by this Court in CR No.2211 of 2017, vide which the

applicant was ordered to pay `25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente

lite to the wife-petitioner from the date of filing of the application.

Learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 contends

that in this case the conduct of the wife-petitioner was not considered as

coming out from the record. Further, the rental income generated from the

property was not considered.

A perusal of the order dated 17.02.2018 shows that the

reference was made to some income being generated by the wife-petitioner.

So far as the conduct of the wife-petitioner is concerned, same cannot be

commented upon, while disposing of the maintenance pendente lite.

1 of 3
10-04-2018 08:55:29 :::
RA-CR No.56-CII of 2018 (OM) in/and -2-
CR No.2211 of 2017 (OM)

Learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 contends

that on account of the conduct of the wife-petitioner, the maintenance

should have been allowed from the date of the passing of the order and not

from the date of filing of the application.

I am of the view that the normal rule is that the maintenance is

allowed from the date of filing of the application. It is only for the special

reasons, it is allowed from the date of the passing of the order.

Learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.1 has referred

to the authority of the Apex Court delivered in case of “Smt. Jasbir Kaur

Sehgal vs The District Judge, Dehradun”, 1997(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 65,

wherein certain parameters have been mentioned, wherein the maintenance

can be allowed from the date of filing of the application.

I am of the view that all the documents available on record

were considered. In the present review application, the matter cannot be

considered as an appeal to assess the documents on file to pass a different

order. There is no error apparent on the record. If the applicant-respondent

No.1 is not satisfied with the order, he can always move to the superior

court for setting aside/modification of the same.

However, while exercising the powers to review the order, no

modification in the order is called for.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the applicant-

respondent No.1 has contended that before the trial Court the wife-

petitioner is unduly delaying the proceedings by conducting the

cross-examination, running in 400 pages with the result that the husband-

2 of 3
10-04-2018 08:55:30 :::
RA-CR No.56-CII of 2018 (OM) in/and -3-

CR No.2211 of 2017 (OM)

applicant/respondent No.1 has to pay the maintenance for the extended

period of disposal has been made date bound.

I am of the view that it is always open to the applicant-

respondent No.1 to seek modification of the order of maintenance pendent

lite, if according to him the wife-petitioner is unduly delaying the

proceedings to get undue benefits of interim maintenance awarded to her.

With the abovenoted observations, the present review

application is dismissed. Since, the main review application has been

dismissed, therefore, the pending application, if any, also stands disposed

of.

(KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE
March 19, 2018
sarita
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: No

3 of 3
10-04-2018 08:55:30 :::