CR Nos.198 and 1903 of 2019(OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 30.04.2019
1. CR No.198 of 2019(OM)

Mehak Pahwa ….Petitioner
Versus
Umesh Pahwa …Respondent

2. CR No.1903 of 2019(OM)

Umesh Pahwa ….Petitioner
Versus
Mehak Pahwa and another …Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR No.198 of 2019 and
for the respondent in CR No.1903 of 2019.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate
for the petitioner in CR No.1903 of 2019 and
for the respondent in 198 of 2019.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

[1]. Notice of motion in CR No.1903 of 2019. Mr. Rahul

Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

[2]. Vide this common order, CR No.198 of 2019 titled

Mehak Pahwa Vs. Umesh Pahwa and CR No.1903 of 2019

titled Umesh Pahwa Vs. Mehak Pahwa are being disposed of.

Facts are being noticed from CR No.198 of 2019.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 12-05-2019 06:22:33 :::
CR Nos.198 and 1903 of 2019(OM) 2

[3]. Financial status of the parties is not in dispute. Trial

Court granted an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards maintenance

for the petitioner and minor daughter aged 9 years. In reply to

the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage act,

respondent took preliminary objection in para No.4 to the

following effect:-

“4. That the answering respondent Umesh Pahwa is
not having any source of income earlier he was
working as a labourer, but due to slump in the market
since last more than about 2.1/2 years, he is not having
any job/work. Due to all these circumstances, the
petitioner left the company of the answering
respondent and earlier she committed cruelty and
harassed the answering respondent also. On the other
hand, petitioner is having good source of income and
she is earning handsome income about Rs.1,50,000/-
per month and she is an independent. So, no ground is
made out to allow this application which is falsely
moved by the petitioner against the respondent. Hence,
the present application deserves dismissal and same
be dismissed with heavy costs.”

[4]. Petitioner has relied upon balance-sheet of the sole

proprietorship belonging to the respondent showing the amount

to the tune of Rs.5,60,04,869.57 towards total sale. The gross

profit was shown to be Rs.25,20,219.13 per annum.

[5]. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent

stated that in fact profit was only Rs.7,55,897.69 according to

2 of 4
12-05-2019 06:22:33 :::
CR Nos.198 and 1903 of 2019(OM) 3

profit and loss account from where the entry towards gross profit

was taken by the petitioner. Learned counsel also pointed out

that the petitioner wife was income tax assessee even prior to

the marriage.

[6]. Account statement dated 22.04.2008 also shows that

an amount of Rs.1 lac was transferred to RDP and similarly an

amount of Rs.40,000/- was also debited in the month of

December 2011. FIR was registered in the year 2016 and after

separation of the parties in the year 2017, wife stopped filing

income tax returns.

[7]. At this stage, no firm finding on the basis of proposed

evidence can be recorded, but still prima facie consideration on

the basis of financial status can be taken into consideration.

[8]. Grant of maintenance pendente lite is not aimed to

enrich any of the spouse, rather the same is made to prevent

the destitution and vagrancies. Petitioner wife is entitled to live

as per status of her husband.

[9]. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

the view that the petitioner wife is entitled for enhancement of

maintenance from Rs.16,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. The

aforesaid amount would suffice to serve the purpose of

maintenance of the wife as well as the minor daughter aged 9

years. It is the moral obligation of the respondent to maintain his

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 12-05-2019 06:22:33 :::
CR Nos.198 and 1903 of 2019(OM) 4

minor daughter. Since the minor daughter is in custody of the

petitioner, therefore, the aforesaid amount would suffice to serve

the purpose of the petitioner.

[10]. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is modified.

Revision petitions are accordingly disposed of. Respondent

shall pay the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the

application. Respondent shall deposit the arrears of

maintenance within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

30.04.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
12-05-2019 06:22:33 :::