SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Devender vs Mukesh on 27 May, 2019

CR-3532-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR-3532-2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 27.05.2019

Devender
…Petitioner
Versus

Mukesh
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

The revisionist, who is respondent in petition under Section

24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by his wife-Mukesh against him in

the divorce petition brought by the revisionist against his wife, is

aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2019, passed by District Judge, Jhajjar,

allowing maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.5000/- per month, besides

Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going

through the record and I find that there is no merit in the revision petition.

The trial Court while allowing the application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act filed by the applicant/wife has taken into

consideration that the respondent is a man of means, having 05 acres of

agricultural land, whereas, the applicant is not having any source of

income and is unable to maintain herself. The fact cannot be lost sight of

that 05 acres of land, even if given on rent, can easily fetch Rs.2 lacs per

1 of 2
09-06-2019 18:19:10 :::
CR-3532-2019 -2-

annum as rent. Though, learned counsel for the revisionist has contended

that most of the land owned by the plaintiff is barren but a perusal of

khasra girdawari of his land placed on record by the revisionist himself

as Annexure P-4 goes to show that he is in self cultivation of the land and

has planted Eucalyptus tress therein, which after some time can yield

considerable return. The petitioner is an able bodied young man. He

cannot escape his liability to maintain his wife, who is not in a position to

maintain herself. The things of basic needs are getting very costly these

days and a sum of Rs.5000/- per month awarded cannot be said to be on

higher side. As such, I do not see any reason to interfere with the

impugned order and to reduce the amount of maintenance granted by the

trial Court. The revision petition being without merit stands dismissed.

27.05.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

2 of 2
09-06-2019 18:19:10 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation