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 :::