SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harinder Kumar vs Rinku on 15 February, 2019

CR-3167-2017 (OM) 1


CR-3167-2017 (OM)
Date of decision : 15.02.2019

Harinder Kumar
… Petitioner
… Respondent


Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankush Chowdhary, Advocate
for the respondent.



The present revision petition, at the instance of the petitioner-

husband, is directed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2017, whereby

in a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted

by the petitioner-husband against his wife, ad interim maintenance @

`10,000/- has been awarded from the date of fling of the application i.e.

17.12.2015 and `2,200/- as litigation expenses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 07.02.2011 and a female child was

born on 14.05.2012. Owing to the differences between the parties, the

respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on 10.05.2013 and the divorce

petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was

filed on 07.07.2015, wherein the respondent-wife submitted an application

1 of 3
10-03-2019 01:02:55 :::
CR-3167-2017 (OM) 2

dated 17.12.2015 for maintenance pendente lite @ `25,000/- on the premise

that the petitioner is practising as Advocate. The trial Court awarded the

maintenance @ `10,000/-, which is on higher side, for, the petitioner was

junior to Sh. Subhash Grover, Advocate and unable to pay the maintenance

as no evidence has been placed on record that he was earning `50,000/- per

month. He is totally new entrant and even has not filed a single case, at the

time when the case was filed, except his own case, therefore, the amount

was enormous. The wife has already filed a petition under Domestic

Violence Act at Pataudi as well as under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, even an FIR under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C., has been

registered at District Alwar, Rajasthan, which has seriously affected his

career. The reference of the revenue record regarding agricultural land is

wholly preposterous as father of the petitioner has two sons and three


Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the

impugned order, under challenge, is perfectly legal and justified. The

petitioner belongs to the rich family and the maintenance pendente lite has

been awarded as per the status of the parties. The lawyer cannot be said to

be earning at least minimum wages, sought to be projected in the petition,

thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.

Before I could dictate the order, learned counsel for the

respondent pointed out that this Court, vide order dated 23.01.2009 had

directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the total amount of arrears at the time

of passing of the order, but the petitioner failed to clear the arrears. On the

other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same has

already been deposited.

2 of 3
10-03-2019 01:02:55 :::
CR-3167-2017 (OM) 3

I have heard learned counsel for the parties ,appraised the paper

book and of the view that the impugned order, under challenge, assessing

the income of the petitioner is little excessive, for, the Court below has not

taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a new entrant and the

agricultural property would not be inherited by him as he has other siblings.

In view of strict competition amongst the new entrants, the finding qua

earning of `25,000/- or `50,000/- as alleged, is far fetched, but equally so,

this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the lawyer has a status in

the society and cannot be said to be earning at least minimum `20,000/-.

Without adverting to the merits of the case, I deem it

appropriate to modify the impugned order, under challenge, the maintenance

pendente lite is hereby reduced from `10,000/- to `8,000/- w.e.f.

17.12.2015. The petitioner is directed to clear all the arrears and in case the

arrears are not clear as disputed by the counsel for the respondent-wife,

liberty is granted to the respondent-wife to seek the recovery in accordance

with law.

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition

stands disposed of.

15.02.2019 ( AMIT RAWAL )
Yogesh Sharma

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No

Whether Reportable Yes/ No

3 of 3
10-03-2019 01:02:55 :::

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