SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Priyanka Bhutani And Anr vs Vishal Narain on 1 May, 2018

C.R. No.2802 of 2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No.2802 of 2018
Date of Decision.01.05.2018

Priyanka Bhutani ……Petitioner

Vs

Vishal Narain …..Respondent

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

-.-

AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL)

The present revision petition is directed against the order

whereby maintenance pendente lite to the minor child @`15,000/- per month

in divorce petition filed by the petitioner has been granted.

Mr. Nonish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submitted that in the divorce petition filed by the petitioner, an

application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming

maintenance pendente lite was moved on the premise that respondent-

husband is working Vice President of a company and drawing salary of

`2,50,000/-. It was categorically stated that the petitioner was working as

Assistant Professor and drawing a net salary of `59,000/- per month whereas

the gross salary was `70,000/-. The trial Court had awarded a sum of

`15,000/- per month for upkeep and maintenance of the minor child, which is

not according to the status of the parties, thus, urges for enhancement of the

same.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the

paper book. Both the husband and wife are working but it is unfortunate that

1 of 2
06-05-2018 23:28:05 :::
C.R. No.2802 of 2018 -2-

they are at loggerheads and are in the Court after 10 years of marriage as the

marriage was performed on 26.02.2006. The amount of maintenance

pendente lite @`15,000/- per month fastened upon the husband, in my view,

cannot be said to be meager amount as the petitioner is also working. Both

the working parents are duty bound to maintain and upkeep the child.

In view of the aforementioned, I do no find any illegality and

perversity in the order under challenge as the same cannot be said to be

passed without jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 01, 2018
Pankaj*
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes

Whether reportable No

2 of 2
06-05-2018 23:28:06 :::

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Your email address will not be published.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