CR No.3725 of 2018(OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.3725 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: 16.10.2019
Parveen Sharma …..Petitioner
Versus
Dipika and another …..Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
[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 :::