219 CMM-115-2015 in
FAO-M-331-2014
AMIT KUMAR V/S CHANCHAL RANI
Present: Mr. B.P.S. Virk, Advocate
for the applicant-respondent.
Mr. Satpal Singh, Advocate
for the appellant-non-applicant.
*****
This order will dispose of an application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-applicant-wife.
The petition filed by the non-applicant-husband for divorce
has been dismissed by the lower court. During pendency of this appeal
before this Court, the present application has been filed claiming that the
applicant-respondent has got no source of income, whereas the husband
is employed and was drawing salary of ` 24,000/- per month in the year
2013. She claims that she should be awarded ad interim maintenance of
` 15,000/- per month and sum of ` 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
The non-applicant-appellant has, in his reply, denied the
fact that the wife-applicant was not working. It is claimed that she was
earning ` 10,000/- to `15,000/- per month. He has leveled allegations of
harassment against the applicant-wife but has not denied his income and
claimed that he has got responsibility to look after his own father.
On the asking of the Court, learned counsel for the
applicant-wife informs that in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
the wife has been awarded sum of ` 5,000/- per month as maintenance,
whereas the child has been awarded maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/-
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 22-07-2018 06:13:05 :::
CMM-115-2015 in -2-
FAO-M-331-2014
per month. It is claimed by the counsel for the applicant-wife that the
husband is working as a Senior Executive in HDFC Bank but no
document has been placed on record indicating the actual income of the
husband. A copy of the statement made by the non-applicant/husband in
his cross-examination that he is drawing a sum of ` 29,000/- per month
as salary has been made available which is taken on record. The said
statement was recorded on 12.05.2017 in the court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Patiala.
Without going into the details of the actual income of the
non-applicant/husband, we are of the opinion that he is an able bodied
person and is earning more than sum of ` 30,000/- per month. It is his
statutory duty to pay the maintenance pendente lite to his wife during the
pendency of the matrimonial litigation. The applicant-wife is
shouldering the responsibility of the minor child alone. Therefore, we
are of the opinion that a sum of ` 12,000/- per month is the bare
minimum, which is required to be paid by the husband/non-applicant to
the applicant-wife towards the maintenance pendente lite with effect
from the date of application i.e. June 2015. She is also held entitled to
litigation expenses of ` 20,000/-. It is made clear that any amount of
maintenance paid in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the said
period, will be deductable from the amount of maintenance awarded by
this Court.
The application is allowed in the above terms.
2 of 3
22-07-2018 06:13:16 :::
CMM-115-2015 in -3-
FAO-M-331-2014
A sum of ` 20,000/- has already been paid towards the
interim litigation expenses. The appellant-husband will not be required
to pay the said amount again.
For payment of the entire arrears of maintenance pendente
lite, adjourned to 17.09.2018.
(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
09.07.2018.
SwarnjitS
3 of 3
22-07-2018 06:13:16 :::
