CR No.6406 of 2018 (OM) 1
249
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6406 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision:08.03.2019
Amrit Pal Singh
……Petitioner
Vs
Navneet Pal Kaur
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the
order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the Addl. District
Judge/Matrimonial Court, Jalandhar vide which the application
filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act was allowed and an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month was
fixed as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.10,000/- as litigation
expenses.
[2]. Vide order dated 24.09.2018, notice of motion was
issued subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.15,000/- by the
1 of 4
17-03-2019 08:58:01 :::
CR No.6406 of 2018 (OM) 2
petitioner towards litigation expenses in the shape of demand
draft payable to the respondent on her appearance. Both the
parties were also directed to be present in Court on the
adjourned date i.e. 07.12.2018. In due course, the case was
adjourned to 01.02.2019 and it was ordered that the amount
lying deposited with the Registry be paid to the respondent on
proper identification by her counsel. On expiry of validity period
of the demand draft, the petitioner was asked to bring the
amount in cash. The demand draft dated 28.09.2018 was
returned to the petitioner.
[3]. In compliance of the order dated 22.02.2019, today an
amount of Rs.15,000/- has been paid to the respondent in
Court, who is present in-person and has been duly identified by
her counsel.
[4]. Interaction with the parties did not yield any positive
response in the context of any amicable resolution of dispute.
[5]. Petitioner has filed petition under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage between the
parties to be null and void by way of decree of nullity. Petitioner
has alleged that respondent has not disclosed that her first
marriage was still subsisting and there was no decree of divorce
obtained by her from her first husband. Petitioner is also a
2 of 4
17-03-2019 08:58:01 :::
CR No.6406 of 2018 (OM) 3
divorcee. He claimed that his earlier marriage was dissolved by
decree of a competent Court. Marriage was solemnized on
12.02.2017 and a daughter took birth on 28.12.2017 from this
wedlock.
[6]. Petitioner has also stated that the award of
maintenance is on higher side. Minor daughter is under care
and custody of the respondent-wife. Petitioner claimed the
present marriage to be result of fraud and misrepresentation as
the earlier marriage of the respondent with Harpreet Singh was
never dissolved by decree of divorce. Petitioner had earlier filed
a complaint under Section 494/420 IPC, but to no avail.
[7]. Petitioner further pleaded that earlier he was working in
a Software Company in Noida, but now he is not doing any job
owing to the conduct of the respondent. He further stated that
respondent is a well qualified lady and is earning Rs.15,000/-
from teaching and other avocations.
[8]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
stated that merits of the case viz-a-viz. the matrimonial status
of the respondent would be gone into by the Court at the
relevant stage. At this state, two lives are being pitted against a
paltry amount of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance. The respondent
could not do any job because of her advance stage of
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 08:58:01 :::
CR No.6406 of 2018 (OM) 4
pregnancy. Petitioner is a man of means.
[9]. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
[10]. It is a settled principle of law that amount of
maintenance has to be paid just to avoid vagrancies and
destitution. Respondent is taking care of minor daughter which
took birth on 28.12.2017. An amount of Rs.15,000/- for the
respondent and her minor daughter cannot be said to be on
higher side by any stretch of imagination. Similarly an amount of
Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses awarded by the trial Court
cannot be said to be on higher side because petitioner himself
has filed a petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
[11]. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case,
the indulgence granted by the Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar
cannot be faulted with. This revision petition is found to be
totally devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
March 08, 2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 08:58:01 :::
