SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manju vs Vinay Kumar on 15 July, 2019

CR-3825-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR-3825-2019 (OM)
Date of decision: 15.07.2019
Manju
…Petitioner
Versus

Vinay Kumar
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present: Mr. Punit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

In a divorce petition filed by petitioner/husband Vinay

Kumar against his wife Manju-respondent, the latter had filed an

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was

opposed by the former, however, the trial Court of Addl. Principal Judge,

Family Camp Court, Pataudi, vide order dated 13.03.2019, accepted the

application and considering that Vinay Kumar was a practising Advocate

at District Courts, Gurugram, having standing of six years, in the absence

of any documentary evidence, assessed his monthly income to be

Rs.25,000/- and granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.5000/- to

the applicant/wife Manju and Rs.2500/- to the minor daughter of the

parties residing with applicant Manju, namely, Baby Rupanshi from the

date of filing of the application. However, the applicant/wife Manju being

of the view that the maintenance pendente lite, so granted by the trial

Court, was on the lower side, has approached this Court, by way of filing

the present revision petition.

1 of 2
21-07-2019 06:34:40 :::
CR-3825-2019 -2-

I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going

through the record and I find that there is no merit in the revision petition.

Admittedly, the applicant had not filed any documentary evidence to

show that her husband Vinay Kumar had been earning more than

Rs.25,000/- per month as assessed by the trial Court. There is nothing to

show that he is an income tax assessee, therefore, the trial Court was

justified in assessing his income to be Rs.25,000/- per month and

granting Rs.5000/- per month to the applicant and Rs.2500/- to the minor

daughter of the parties, which amounts to around 1/3rd of assessed income

of Vinay Kumar and can certainly be not taken to be on the lower side.

The trial Court had decided the petition on the basis of pleadings of the

parties and evidence brought before it. The revisionist has got an

independent right to file petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for herself

and on behalf of minor daughter of the parties against the respondent and

by producing sufficient evidence, claim even higher amount therein.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order,

much less apparent on the face of it, which might have called for

interference by this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Thus,

finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands dismissed.

15.07.2019 (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

2 of 2
21-07-2019 06:34:40 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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