SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gaurav vs Kanchan And Anr on 30 May, 2018

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Civil Revision No.8503 of 2016

Date of decision:30.5.2018


Kanchan and another

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.

Inderjit Singh, J.

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated

13.10.2016 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Amritsar, whereby application filed by applicant-Kanchan (wife) under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as

`HMA’) for grant of maintenance pendente lite as well as litigtion expenses

has been allowed.

Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Earlier Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondents, but after 1.5. 2017 no one has appeared for the


1 of 3
11-06-2018 02:45:09 :::
Civil Revision No.8503 of 2016

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone

through the record.

From the record, I find that the present petitioner has filed a

petition under Section 13 of the HMA for dissolution of marriage by

granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as adultery.

During the pendency of the petition, an application under Section 24 of the

HMA for grant of ad interim maintenance and litigation expenses had been


The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned

order dated 13.10.2016 accepted the application and maintenance pendente

lite @ `7500/- per month was granted to the wife-applicant and further

`5,000/- has been granted as litigation expenses.

The marriage between Gaurav and Kanchan has been admitted.

The present petitioner is alleging that the wife is residing in adultery but

there is no document on record to show that she is residing with respondent

No.2 in adultery. This fact is yet to be proved by the petitioner by leading

evidence in the petition filed under Section 13 of the HMA.

The applicant-wife admitted in her application that she is doing

a petty job to take IELTS classes and to teach English speaking to students

and she get a very meager salary of `6,000/- per month from the said job.

Out of the amount of `6,000/- more than `3,000/- is required for

conveyance charges and she is hardly left with any amount and she is totally

dependent upon her parents for her maintenance.

The case of respondent-husband (petitioner herein) is that she is

earning `20,000/-, but there is no cogent documentary evidence on record to

2 of 3
11-06-2018 02:45:10 :::
Civil Revision No.8503 of 2016

prove the version of the respondent-husband. It is admitted fact that minor

daughters are living with the present petitioner. Though the applicant-wife

alleged that the husband is earning `50 Lakhs from all sources and belongs

to a very influential family, but the income-tax return filed by him shows

that he is earning `3,66,794/- per annum i.e. about `33,000/- per month.

The learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, has already

taken into consideration that the minor daughters are residing with the

present petitioner (husband) and they are studying in one of the best schools

of Amritsar. Keeping in view of these facts, the learned Additional District

Judge, Amritsar, granted a maintenance pendente lite of `7,500/- per month

and `5,000/- as litigtion expenses.

In no way, the amount granted by the learned Additional

District Judge, Amritsar, can be held as excessive nor, in any way, it can be

held that the applicant-wife (respondent herein) is not entitled to any

maintenance. While passing the impugned order, no illegality has been

committed by the Court below and the same is correct as per law and it does

not require any interference from this Court and is upheld.

Finding no merit in this civil revision petition, the same is

accordingly dismissed.

May 30, 2018. (Inderjit Singh)

NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No

3 of 3
11-06-2018 02:45:10 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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