CR No.7114 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CR No.7114 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision: 12.10.2017
Simmi and others
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. J.S. Guru, Advocate
for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (ORAL)
Instant civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, at the hands of husband, is directed against the order
dated 07.07.2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby application under Section 24 read
with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, moved on behalf of respondent
No.1-wife and her children-respondents No.2 and 3 for grant of maintenance
pendente lite and litigation expenses, was allowed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is a matter of record that petitioner is working as Sweeper in
the Municipal Corporation. This seems to be the reason that since the
petitioner was not earning handsome income, a paltry amount of Rs.1200/- per
month was awarded as maintenance pendente lite to respondent No.1-wife and
Rs.1000/- each to the children-respondents No.2 and 3. Nothing could have
been imagined a lesser amount of maintenance than the one granted by the
1 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:27 :::
CR No.7114 of 2017 2
learned Court below, while passing the impugned order. Having said that, this
Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Family Court was well
within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same deserves to be
In these days of sky-rocketing prices, no one can be expected to
sustain himself/herself with an amount of less than Rs.1000/- per month. The
amount of maintenance awarded by the learned Court below to the
respondents is just the bare minimum amount and it cannot be said on higher
side by any stretch of imagination. It goes without saying that the petitioner-
husband is legally as well as morally bound to maintain his wife and children.
It is not the undue financial burden on the petitioner. Under these
circumstances of the case, it can be safely concluded that the learned Court
below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned order and the
same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner
could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order,
which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its
revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact,
the impugned order passed by the learned Court below has been found based
on sound reasons and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the
considered view that since no illegality or perversity has been found in the
impugned order, the same deserves to be upheld. The revision petition having
2 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:28 :::
CR No.7114 of 2017 3
been found wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance,
must fail. No ground for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant
revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
[ RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK ]
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
16-10-2017 01:14:28 :::