CR-512-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-512-2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 08.07.2019
Avtar Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
Sharandeep Kaur
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present: Petitioner with counsel Mr. Abhinav Sood.
Respondent with counsel Mr. Vidit Bansal.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Avtar Singh has appeared in the Court but he has
not brought the money to pay the arrears of maintenance. He seeks some
time for that. Already considerable time has been granted to him for that
purpose. His request is declined. Let the revision petition be heard on
merits.
Sharandeep Kaur-respondent in the present petition has
brought a petition for divorce against her husband Avtar Singh, who is
petitioner before this Court. On getting notice, respondent/husband Avtar
Singh had appeared before the trial Court. Sharandeep Kaur had filed an
application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking grant of
maintenance pendente lite. After contest by respondent/husband Avtar
Singh, the said application was allowed by the trial Court, vide order
dated 21.11.2018 and maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month was granted to
1 of 3
15-07-2019 05:40:35 :::
CR-512-2019 -2-
the applicant, payable by respondent from the date of order, besides
Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. The said order is being challenged in the
present revision petition by respondent/husband Avtar Singh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record.
The trial Court taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case has come to an inference that applicant
Sharandeep Kaur is legally wedded wife of Avtar Singh and she is
residing separately from the respondent and further she does not have any
source of income and under the circumstances, respondent/husband Avtar
Singh is under a legal as well as moral obligation to maintain the
applicant. Though, applicant/wife had asserted that respondent by
working as Security Provider, is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, however,
the trial Court has considered that during the course of proceeding it had
been admitted on behalf of respondent/husband that he was working as a
Security Provider earlier, which avocation he is unable to continue on
account of having met with an accident. However, the trial Court has
recorded the observation that such plea of respondent/husband is not
sustainable as he appeared to be hale and hearty from his appearance and
assessed his income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. The income so assessed
cannot be taken to be on higher side, keeping in view the fact that in the
State of Punjab even a manual labourer is earning Rs.300 to 400 per day.
Considering the income of respondent to be Rs.15,000/- and requirement
of applicant, the trial Court has granted monthly allowance @ Rs5000/-
2 of 3
15-07-2019 05:40:35 :::
CR-512-2019 -3-
to the applicant, which can certainly be not taken to be on higher side,
considering the fact that things of the basic needs are getting very costly
day by day. The litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/- are also not
found to be on higher side. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with
the impugned order, either to set it aside or reduce the amount of
maintenance allowance or litigation expenses as awarded by the trial
Court. There is no merit in the revision petition, the same stands
dismissed.
08.07.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
3 of 3
15-07-2019 05:40:35 :::