Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017
Date of Decision: 29.08.2017
Deepak Suri
……Petitioner
Vs
Neha Suri
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ameet Awasthi, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[1]. This revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the
District Judge, Panchkula whereby an amount of Rs.32,000/-
per month was awarded towards maintenance pendente lite
from the date of filing the application and an amount of
Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife.
[2]. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 13 (i)(a), (i)(b), (iii)of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short
‘the Act’) for grant of decree of divorce. In the said petition, the
1 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:04 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 2
respondent Neha Suri filed an application under Section 24 of
the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation
expenses. It was contended by the respondent that a female
child took birth from the wedlock, who was under the care and
custody of respondent. The minor child was suffering from
‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and was a school going
child. It was further pleaded by the respondent that earlier she
was working in a private company and in May, 2016, she lost
her job and since then she was unemployed and has no source
of income to maintain herself and her minor ailing child.
Petitioner is a qualified engineer and is working as Deputy
Manager Application Engineering in M/s Borg Warner Emissions
Systems India Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon and was earning Rs.18 lacs
per annum. With these pleadings, the respondent claimed
maintenance to the tune of Rs.75,000/- per month, besides
litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Since the female child was
suffering from ‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and was
under treatment, an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month was
claimed towards her treatment, education and clothing etc.
Besides claiming the aforesaid amount, the respondent also
claimed rental to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.
[3]. The aforesaid application was contested by the
petitioner on the ground that the respondent is gainfully
2 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 3
employed in a private company and was earning Rs.8 lacs per
annum.
[4]. From the pleadings and material on record, the Court
below found that the average salary of the petitioner was
Rs.75,000/- per month approximately after deductions. The
respondent by way of her affidavit stated that she remained in
job till April 2016 and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but
since then she was umemployed. The petitioner could not
contradict the aforesaid assertion made by the respondent by
way of affidavit..
[5]. Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon
Rupali Gupta vs. Rajat Gupta, 2016(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 340 DB
Delhi contended that when the wife is found to be qualified and
in job for some time, then she is not entitled to any interim
maintenance.
[6]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
by relying upon Ruchi Rai Sehmbey and Ors. vs. Simon
Jason Sehmbey @ Haminder Sehmbey, 2013(43) R.C.R.
(Civil) 673 DB Delhi contended that if the wife is unemployed
and her employment was in existence some times ago and if
there is no material on record that to show that she is likely to
get employment in near future, then her previous status cannot
3 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 4
debar her from claiming maintenance pendente lite.
[7]. I have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the
respondent wife was in employment till April 2016 and she was
earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but thereafter she is not in
employment. She has executed an affidavit to this effect which
has not been controverted by way of any cogent material by the
petitioner. The ratio of Rupali Gupta’s case (supra) cannot be
applied to the instant case as in the said case, the wife was
found to be in employment at the time of filing of the application
and that is why the interim maintenance was not granted in her
favour by the Court. The grant of maintenance is to prevent
vagrancies and destitution of the wife.
[8]. In the instant case, the ailing female child is suffering
from ‘Nephrotic Syndrome (Kidney failure)’ and requires huge
amount to be spent towards her treatment and education. The
earlier employment of the respondent-wife cannot be
considered for debarring her from claiming maintenance
pendente lite.
[9]. In view of facts and circumstances of present case
where a child is suffering such an ailment which requires
constant care and custody of the minor. The child is 10 years of
4 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::
Civil Revision No.2311 of 2017 5
age and studying in 4th class. The said status of the child would
also requires healthy amount to be spent on her education.
Keeping in view the earning capacity of the petitioner, it cannot
be said that an award of Rs.32,000/- per month towards
maintenance pendente lite and amount of Rs.20,000/- towards
litigation expenses are on the higher side. The amount of
Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order
dated 05.04.2017 is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent
by moving an appropriate application in the aforesaid context.
[10]. In view of above, I do not see any error of jurisdiction in
the impugned order passed by the Courts below. This revision
petition is accordingly dismissed.
August 29, 2017 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Atik JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
03-09-2017 03:28:05 :::