CR No.8659 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CR No.8659 of 2016 (OM)
Date of decision: 30.4.2018
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present: Mr.Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate for
Mr.M.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajeev Dhawan, Advocate for the respondent.
KULDIP SINGH, J. (Oral)
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 :::