SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nitin Garg vs Shruti on 30 April, 2018

CR No.8659 of 2016 -1-


CR No.8659 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 30.4.2018

Nitin Garg



Present: Mr.Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate for
Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajeev Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.


Impugned in the present revision petition is order dated

20.10.2016 passed by learned Addl.District Judge, Panipat whereby in a

pending disposal of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, learned Additional District Judge, Panipat while deciding the

application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granted

maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the wife-respondent and

Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file carefully.

It comes out that respondent-wife is living at Panipat. Parties

have a female child who is now 8 years old and stated to be studying in Ist

standard. The trial Court has recorded that respondent is having a factory at

Kala Amb (Himachal Pradesh) and has also succeeded property of his

father. Before this Court an additional affidavit was filed regarding the

1 of 2
06-05-2018 18:12:55 :::
CR No.8659 of 2016 -2-

status of the properties. Petitioner has denied the property mentioned at

Serial No.7 and 9, however, some of the properties are in the name of his

mother and some are in the name of his late father which have been

succeeded by him. The petitioner is present in the Court. He has admitted

that he is running a soda water factory from which he is earning money

Rs.40,000/- to 50,000/- p.m.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed copy of the order

dated 23.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Panipat showing that maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the wife

and child and the order was upheld in appeal. It being so and considering

the fact that respondent-wife has to maintain the child and spend on her

education, clothing and food, it can be safely assumed that wife has to spend

Rs.10,000/- on the child, therefore, she has left with Rs.10,000/- for

maintaining herself which cannot be called excessive. Considering that

maintenance of Rs.25,000/- has already been affirmed in proceedings under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. it being so, there is no merit in the revision petition and

the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be entitled

for adjustment of the maintenance granted in this case and in the

maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

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

2 of 2
06-05-2018 18:12:56 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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