CR-7847-2013 (O M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CR-7847-2013 (O M)
Date of Decision:07.05.2018
Prabhjit Singh …Petitioner
Navneet Kaur …Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Lupil Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the order
passed by the Court while deciding the application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act is only for the purpose of determining maintenance
pendente lite and such determination does not amount to fixing of
maintenance after the period of litigation. It is also agreed that such
determination under Section 24 cannot be used as a precedent for
determining maintenance pendente lite in other proceedings.
In the present case, it is not disputed that divorce proceeding
during which order under challenge was passed has been finally decided and
even the first appeal filed against the decree has been withdrawn.
Grievance of the petitioner is that all the Courts are passing
orders basing their decision on the interim order passed by the Court while
determining maintenance in other proceedings between the parties. Since
the main petition for divorce has come to an end, in the considered view of
1 of 2
19-05-2018 23:17:55 :::
CR-7847-2013 (O M) -2-
this Court, this revision does not survive and is rendered infructuous.
Needless to say that such determination of maintenance under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only for the purpose of determining
maintenance pendente lite and cannot be construed as a final determination.
Hence, revision petition is dismissed as infructuous.
07.05.2018 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
19-05-2018 23:17:57 :::