CR No.5392 of 2018(OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.5392 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: 15.05.2019

Rajinder Kumar ….Petitioner

Versus

Neelam Kumari …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Nehra, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the

order dated 06.07.2018 passed by Additional District Judge,

Rupnagar vide which the application filed by the respondent

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and an

amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed as maintenance

pendente lite.

[2]. The marriage between the parties is an admitted fact.

The marriage took place in the year 2007. Petitioner claimed

that he has no source of income and there is no ground to

award any maintenance against him. The Court has recorded

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 09-06-2019 22:23:27 :::
CR No.5392 of 2018(OM) 2

some incriminating facts with reference to representation filed

by the petitioner before Senior Superintendent of Police,

Rupnagar, wherein he had admitted that he is a trader doing

business at Bharatgarh. There are allegations and counter

allegations.

[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is a

delay of about 10 years in seeking maintenance. From the date

of desertion till date, no application was filed by the respondent

for seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The

respondent never wanted to reside with the petitioner. Petitioner

has no source of income to maintain the respondent.

[4]. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that non-filing of any application under Section 125

Cr.P.C cannot be credited in favour of the petitioner as the same

goes in favour of the petitioner because nothing was claimed

from the petitioner for the said period as the respondent was

being maintained by her parents. After the demise of her

parents, she is living with her sister.

[5]. At this stage, no reliance can be placed for want of

evidence which would be led by the parties at the relevant

stage. Grant of maintenance pendente lite is not aimed to enrich

any of the spouse, rather the same is made to prevent the

destitution and vagrancies. Respondent is entitled to live as per

2 of 4
09-06-2019 22:23:28 :::
CR No.5392 of 2018(OM) 3

status of her husband. In these days of growing prices, an

amount of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient for minimum bare

sustenance of life in terms of day to day basic needs. There

cannot be any dispute with regard to proposition held in Neeta

Rakesh Jain Vs. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (2010) 12 Supreme

Court Cases 242 and Manish Jain Vs. Akanksha Jain, (2017)

15 Supreme Court Cases 801.

[6]. The maintenance can be granted as per social status of

the parties. It is the moral obligation of the husband to maintain

his wife. No evidence of the income of the husband has come

forth, but at one stage, a representation was made by the

petitioner before Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar

wherein he had admitted his status to be that of a trader. While

ordering maintenance, the discretion of the Court must be

guided by the criteria provided in the provision i.e. source of

income of the parties and also after taking into consideration the

incidental and other relevant factors like social status and

background of the parties. The maintenance under Section 24

of the Hindu Marriage is an interim maintenance during

pendency of the divorce petition. A detailed and elaborate

exercise by the Court may not be necessary, but prima facie

consideration has to be made in respect of source of income of

the husband. The Court has to exercise its discretion in a

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 09-06-2019 22:23:28 :::
CR No.5392 of 2018(OM) 4

judicious manner while granting maintenance pendente lite.

[7]. The award of maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/-

keeping in view the social status of the parties is not on the

higher side as this amount is sufficient to avoid vagrancies and

destitution as the respondent is also entitled to live as per status

of the husband. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner has

no source of income cannot be believed in view of his stand

taken before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar

which prima facie ventilates his prima facie status to be that of a

trader. Even otherwise, the award of maintenance to the tune of

Rs.10,000/- is not such which would entail in exercise of

extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under SectionArticle

227 of the Constitution of India.

[8]. Finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is

dismissed. Normal consequences to follow.

15.05.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
09-06-2019 22:23:28 :::