CR-7847-2013 (O M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107
CR-7847-2013 (O M)
Date of Decision:07.05.2018

Prabhjit Singh …Petitioner

Versus

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even the first appeal filed against the decree has been withdrawn.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)
sheetal JUDGE

Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
19-05-2018 23:17:57 :::