CR-6322 of 2017 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

122 CR-6322 of 2017
Date of Decision:18.09.2017

Jaspal Sampla …..Petitioner

Versus

Amarjyoti …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK.

Present: Mr.Krishan Sehajpal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

****

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J.(Oral)

Petitioner-husband has approached this Court by way of instant

civil revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,

for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-4),

whereby learned matrimonial court allowed the application of the

respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short “the

Act”), directing the petitioner-husband to pay `10,000/- per month as

maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, in addition to `15,000/-

as litigation expenses.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner-husband is pursuing this proxy litigation through his

special power of attorney, namely, Sh.Shingara Ram. As pointed out by

learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner-husband is residing in Portugal

for the last more than five years. He came to India only to perform marriage

1 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:41 :::
CR-6322 of 2017 2

with the respondent and after some time again left for Portugal. It seems

that the parties could not pull on for long and the petitioner-husband filed a

divorce-petition, which is being tried by the learned NRI Court. It was

during pendency of the divorce-petition that the respondent-wife moved an

application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite

claiming `25,000/- per month. Application moved by the respondent-wife

was allowed by the learned court below vide impugned order dated

01.08.2017, directing the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of `10,000/-

per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife, in addition

to `15,000/- as litigation expenses. The bare perusal of the impugned order

passed by the learned court below will make it crystal clear that the

impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality and the same

deserves to be upheld.

It is not even the argued case on behalf of the petitioner before

this Court as well, that petitioner is unable to pay an amount of `10,000/-

per month to the respondent-wife. Further, in these days of sky-rocketing

prices, an amount of `10,000/- per month cannot be said to be on higher

side in spite of the fact that the respondent-wife was also found earning an

amount of `13,000/- per month. It is so said because the respondent-wife is

also entitled to enjoy the same life style and social status as the petitioner-

husband is enjoying. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded

that the learned court below committed no error of law, while passing the

impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order

passed by the learned court below, which may warrant interference at the

2 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:43 :::
CR-6322 of 2017 3

hands of this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order has been found based

on sound reasons and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered view that the present revision petition is misconceived, bereft of

merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference

has been made out.

Resultantly, with the above-said observations made, instant

revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

September 18, 2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
seema JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
23-09-2017 15:14:43 :::