SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravinder Kumar vs Pooja on 13 March, 2019

CR No. 1723 of 2019 -1-


CR No. 1723 of 2019
Date of Decision: 13.03.2019

Ravinder Kumar

Smt. Pooja


Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.



By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned

Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonepat, dated 10.01.2019, (with

learned counsel submitting that the order erroneously shown the year 2018

both at the beginning and at the end of it), by which an application filed by the

respondent herein, i.e. the wife of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed, with the petitioner directed to pay her

Rs.12,500/- per month for her maintenance, she having stated in her application

(copy Annexure P-3), that she is a “domestic lady who is unable to do any

work or to maintain herself”, with it even having been alleged that that was for

the reason that she was suffering from injuries allegedly inflicted by the


On the other hand, the petitioner is stated (in the application) to be

earning a salary of more than Rs. 50,000/- per month, he being an employee in

the Chandigarh Police, with it also further stated that he earns additional

income from his moveable and immovable properties to the tune of Rs.

1 of 4
24-03-2019 22:46:26 :::
CR No. 1723 of 2019 -2-

30,000/-, thereby having a total income of Rs. 80,000/- per month.

She had actually therefore asked for a maintenance of Rs.35,000/-,

in addition to Rs.11,000/- by way of litigation expenses.

Vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court (in proceedings

instituted under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the present petitioner,

alleging therein cruelty at the hands of respondent wife), recording a finding

that as per the salary certificate placed on record by the present petitioner, he

was taking a carry home salary of Rs. 45,223/- per month.

Hence, with it obviously not having been shown before that Court

that the respondent herein, i.e. the wife, had any source of income of her own, a

monthly maintenance of Rs. 12,500/- has been directed to be paid by the

petitioner to the respondent, with nothing stated in the impugned order with

regard to litigation expenses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

having old parents and two sisters to look after, the respondent was not entitled

to any maintenance, especially as the allegation is that she was cruel to the


He further submits that the respondent left the matrimonial home

on her own accord.

Yet further, he submits that earlier also a compromise was effected

between the petitioner and the respondent, despite which she left her

matrimonial home.

Having considered the aforesaid arguments, first Section 24 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, needs to be noticed, which is reproduced as


“Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of

2 of 4
24-03-2019 22:46:27 :::
CR No. 1723 of 2019 -3-

proceedings—-Where in any proceeding under this Act it
appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as
the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for
her or his support and the necessary expenses of the
proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the
husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the
expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the
proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s
own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem
to the court to be reasonable:

[Provided that the application for the
payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such
monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as
possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of
service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case
may be.]”

Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, if it appears to the Court that

either the husband or the wife has no independent source of income sufficient

to support herself/himself, necessary expenses during the pendency of the

proceedings before that Court, would be granted to such person, to be paid by

the other.

Nothing having been shown before this Court that the petitioner is

actually not earning Rs. 45,000/- per month as his carry home salary, or that the

respondent has any source of income to sustain herself, simply because the

petitioner has his parents and his sisters to look after (as contended before this

Court, with no evidence having been produced to show as to whether he has

any other siblings who could also be performing that duty), in any case, the

petitioner is also duty bound to maintain his wife even during the pendency of

the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in

terms of Section 24.

3 of 4
24-03-2019 22:46:27 :::
CR No. 1723 of 2019 -4-

Consequently, finding no merit in this petition, it is dismissed in


March 13, 2019 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)
nitin/dinesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes

4 of 4
24-03-2019 22:46:27 :::

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