-1-
Civil Revision No.3886 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.3886 of 2017
Date of decision: 30.01.2018

Hardip Singh
…….Petitioner
versus

Prabhsharan Kaur
……Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: – Mr. Lalit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the instant petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been laid to orders dated 15.03.2017 and

10.05.2017 of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, awarding `

5,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent-wife from the

date of her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short

the Act’), besides litigation expenses of ` 5,000/- and dismissing petitioner’s

review application.

In nutshell, in a divorce petition filed by the respondent-wife

against petitioner-husband, she moved an application under Section 24 of

the Act for grant of maintenance to the tune of ` 50,000/- per month,

besides litigation expenses of ` 11,000/- claiming that her husband was a

settled businessman having partnership in two firms at New Delhi, besides

other businesses.

The said application was accepted by learned Additional

District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 15.03.2017 granting aforesaid

maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the respondent.

Aggrieved against the order
1 of 2 dated 15.03.2017, petitioner filed
04-02-2018 21:37:39 :::
-2-
Civil Revision No.3886 of 2017

review application, which too was dismissed vide order dated 10.05.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-

wife being a highly qualified lady is earning a handsome salary, which she

concealed from the trial Court to get the maintenance pendente lite and

litigation expenses in an illegal manner. The trial Court ought not to have

granted any maintenance to the respondent-wife without affording an

opportunity to the petitioner for leading evidence qua income of the

respondent.

Having given considerable thought to the submissions made by

learned counsel for the petitioner, both the impugned orders are modified to

the effect that learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, shall reimburse

the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the respondent-wife

against her personal bonds and surety bond that, in case, the same is ever

reduced, altered or set aside, the respondent would deposit the entire amount

taken by her with the Court within two months.

This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the

respondent with a view to impart justice to the parties and to save the huge

expenses which may be incurred by the respondent and also to avoid

unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the

respondent may move this Court for recalling this order within six weeks

from today.

(Ramendra Jain)
Judge
January 30, 2018
R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No.
2 of 2
04-02-2018 21:37:41 :::