CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No. 2887 of 2017(OM)
Date of decision :05.07.2017
Harjit Singh
……Petitioner
Versus
Gurwinder Kaur

……..Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
DARSHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the respondent-

wife has been awarded the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of ` 4000/-

per month from the date of filing the application. He has also been directed

to pay a sum of ` 5500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Petitioner-husband has filed the petitioner under Section 13 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short-‘Act’) for dissolution of the

marriage by decree of divorce. During the pendency of the petition,

respondent-wife filed the application under Section 24 of the Act for grant

of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses alleging therein that

the petitioner-husband is an able bodied person. He is serving as a driver in

Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur and getting more than ` 40,000/- per month

as salary. His income from all sources is ` 60,000/- per month. He has

wilfully neglected the respondent-wife. The petitioner is duty bound to

maintain the respondent-wife. She has prayed for grant of maintenance

pendente lite at the rate of ` 15,000/- per month from the date of filing the

1 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:43 :::
CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 2

application and ` 30,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The said application was contested by the present petitioner. He

denied his income as pleaded by the respondent-wife and further pleaded

that in-fact the salary of the petitioner is about ` 8000/- per month. He has

to maintain himself, his two minor sons and 83 years old bed ridden father.

He also pleaded that respondent-wife is matriculate. She is skilled in

tailoring, embroidery and knitting. She is doing work of beauty parlour and

is earning ` 30,000/- per month.

4. Learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur allowed the

application filed by the respondent-wife vide impugned order dated

14.02.2017 and awarded the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of

` 4000/- per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing the

application. ` 5500/- were awarded towards litigation expenses.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present petition has

been preferred.

5. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

contended that the petitioner is working as a driver with Punjab Roadways

on contract basis. His salary is only ` 8000/- per month. He has to maintain

two minor sons and old father. He further contended that respondent-wife

has independent source of income. She is matriculate. She knows tailoring,

embroidery and knitting and is earning more than ` 30,000/- per month. She

is able to maintain herself. So, she is not entitled for grant of any

maintenance.

6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

7. This fact is not disputed that respondent is the legally wedded

wife of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner in the reply that the

2 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:45 :::
CR No.2887 of 2017 (OM) 3

respondent-wife is a matriculate. She knows tailoring, embroidery and

knitting and is earning more than ` 30,000/- per month. But, no material to

support these allegations have been brought on record. Thus, there is

nothing to conclude that the respondent-wife has any independent source of

income to maintain herself.

8. This fact is not disputed that petitioner-husband is working as a

driver with Punjab Roadways. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that he is working only on contract basis and his salary is

` 8000/- per month. But, the petitioner has not brought on record his salary

certificate to substantiate his plea. The petitioner has also not brought on

record any material to show that he is working as a driver with Punjab

Roadways only on contract basis. So, the petitioner has withheld the

material documents with respect to his salary and status. Thus, there is no

escape to presume that his salary will be much more than pleaded by him.

9. The learned trial Court has awarded the maintenance

pendente lite only at the rate of ` 4000/- per month from the date of filing

the application and ` 5500/- as litigation expenses, which cannot be stated

to be excessive or on higher side.

10. Consequently, the impugned order does not suffers from any

illegality or legal infirmity which can warrant any interference by this Court.

11. Resultantly, the present revision petition having no merits, is

hereby dismissed.

(DARSHAN SINGH)
05.07.2017 JUDGE
S.khan

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
09-07-2017 08:38:45 :::