IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of decision: 15.07.2019
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 :::
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)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
2 of 2
21-07-2019 06:34:40 :::