SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitender Singh vs Seema Yadav on 9 January, 2020

CR- 68 of 2020 (OM) -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

CR- 68 of 2020 (OM)
Date of Decision: 9.1.2020

Jitender Singh

Seema Yadav

Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

Present: Mr. Virendra Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner

Rekha Mittal, J.

Challenge in the present petition has been directed against

order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Principal District

Judge, Family Court, Bhiwani whereby application under Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”) filed by respondent, has

been allowed and amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month has been awarded

towards maintenance pendente lite.

The sole submission made by counsel for the petitioner is that

gross salary of the petitioner in November 2019 was approximately

Rs. 60,000/- but after deduction, his carry home salary is slightly more than

Rs. 27,000/-, therefore, interim maintenance allowed by the Court is on

extremely higher side.

Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the court has

assessed maintenance pendente lite by taking into consideration the needs of

minor daughter of the parties as well who is a student of 6th standard in

St. Xaviers School, Bhiwani and school fee Rs. 3000/- per month and

transportation charges Rs. 1200/- per month to be incurred in this regard.

The gross salary of the petitioner is approximately Rs. 60,000/- out of which

1 of 2
19-01-2020 07:59:46 :::
CR- 68 of 2020 (OM) -2-

Rs. 25,000/-towards provident fund subscription, Rs. 2345/- for two other

subscriptions and Rs. 1994/- for PLI Premium are being deducted. The only

statutory deduction is qua income tax of Rs. 3074/-. In the given

circumstances, the petitioner cannot derive any advantage to his contention

from other deductions made from his salary to contend that since his carry

home salary is Rs. 27,000/- per month, maintenance assessed needs


Perusal of application for maintenance reveals that in para 5,

there are averments with regard to petitioner owning and possessing

agricultural land at his native village and earning more than Rs. 25,000/- per

month from agriculture. Reply to the application has not been placed on


Counsel, in response to a query, is not in a position to say

something about agriculture land. As per settled position in law, the

respondent-wife is entitle to enjoy the same amenities of life as she would

have had she been residing with her husband. Taking a reasonable view, in

light of soaring prices of daily necessities of life coupled with educational

expenses of daughter of the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere in

assessment of maintenance pendente lite.

For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit, the petition fails

and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing stated

hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the


(Rekha Mittal)
PARAMJIT Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
19-01-2020 07:59:46 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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