SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Parveen Sharma vs Dipika And Another on 16 October, 2019

CR No.3725 of 2018(OM) 1


CR No.3725 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: 16.10.2019

Parveen Sharma …..Petitioner


Dipika and another …..Respondents


Present:Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

None for the respondents.



[1]. Petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated

27.03.2018 passed by the District Judge, Jhajjar, vide which an

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by

respondent No.1 was allowed, granting an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite in favour

of respondent No.1 and minor sons from the date of filing of the

application, besides granting an amount of Rs.5000/- towards

litigation expenses.

[2]. The couple was blessed with two sons who are school

going and are in the custody of respondent No.1. Parties are at

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-10-2019 05:25:45 :::
CR No.3725 of 2018(OM) 2

some variance in respect of service of the petitioner i.e. whether

he is serving as Deputy Marketing Head (Haryana) with Bhakt

Vatsal Enterprises, Bahadurgarh or as a Sales Manager in M/s

Kundlas Loh Udyog. Petitioner has relied upon salary certificate

showing his monthly income to be Rs.15,000/-. Petitioner has

laid much emphasis on the alleged allegation of adultery against

respondent No.1, but he has not raised question of paternity in

respect of his two minor sons.

[3]. At this stage, allegations and counter allegations made

by the parties cannot be appreciated. Grant of maintenance is

only to prevent vagrancies and destitution of the wife. At the

same time, amount of maintenance should not be such so as to

impede the prospects of conciliatory mechanism and may result

in profit earning mechanism.

[4]. District Judge, Jhajjar has taken note of the pleadings

of the parties and arguments raised before the Court.

[5]. Admittedly, the petitioner is doing a private job in

Bahadurgarh. Petitioner has relied upon salary certificate

showing his monthly income to be Rs.15,000/- per month. The

aforesaid evidence cannot be authenticated at this juncture in

the absence of proof of its execution as the same shall be

adverted to by the trial Court at the relevant time. For granting

maintenance, some guess work has to be done as the husband

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-10-2019 05:25:45 :::
CR No.3725 of 2018(OM) 3

is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. The

maintenance can be refused in case wife is living separately

with an animus not to return to the matrimonial house and has

become unchaste. Allegations at this stage cannot be

appreciated for want of evidence.

[6]. In my considered opinion, the award of Rs.10,000/- per

month towards maintenance pendente lite of respondent No.1

and minor sons cannot be held to be on higher side.

[7]. Looked from any angle, there is no scope for

interference in this revision petition. This revision petition is

accordingly dismissed.

16.10.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-10-2019 05:25:45 :::

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