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 :::