IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Civil Revision No. 136 of 2018.

Date of Decision: 22nd May, 2019

.

Ravinder Singh …..Petitioner.

Versus

Ravinder Kaur @ Narender Kaur …Respondent.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Hardeep Verma, Advocate.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the verdict

pronounced by learned District and Sessions Judge, Shimla,

H.P., in CMP No. 186-S/6 of 2016, preferred under Sectionsection 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherethrough, the, respondent

had strived, for, determination, of, per mensem, maintenance

pendent-lite.

2. The learned District Judge, Shimla, while making the

impugned order, relied upon the testimony rendered by the

AW-2, Smt Ravinder Kaur, wherein she testified qua the salary

of the petitioner herein, for, the months’ of December,

28/05/2019 21:56:13 :::HCHP
2

comprised in a sum of Rs. 1,00,442/- per mensem, and, his,

carry home salary, is, disclosed to be comprised in a sum of Rs.

79,908/-. Further, a reading of Para 24 of the impugned verdict,

.

(a) also makes a disclosure qua, the petitioner, being liable to

look after his minor daughters, hence, studying in senior

classes, and, (b) apart therefrom, his being encumbered with a

liability to look, after, his aged ailing mother. It is also evident,

from a reading of paragraph 26 of the impugned verdict, qua,

the tuition fee, of his children, being reimbursed, to him, by the

Railway Authorities. A further reading of paragraph 26, of the

impugned verdict also makes a disclosure, qua the petitioner,

admitting the fact of his mother, getting pension.

Consequently, in view of above, the learned District Judge, in

the afore petition, proceeded to determine a sum of

Rs.20,000/- per mensem maintenance pendent-lite, to his wife,

the respondent herein.

3. However, through the instant petition, the afore

verdict is challenged by the petitioner, and, the afore, challenge

is constituted, vis-a-vis the, afore quantum of, per mensem

maintenance pendent lite, being exorbitant and excessive.

4. However, this Court is of the view, that, the

impugned award is not liable to be interfered with, given the

28/05/2019 21:56:13 :::HCHP
3

petitioner herein not adducing any evidence qua the

respondent being an employee. Further more, the impugned

order was rendered in the year 2018, and, when therefrom till

.

now, there hence, occurring accretions/increase(s) in his salary,

and, also since then, uptill now there happening price

escalations, thereupon it would not be appropriate to interfere

with the impugned order, and, accordingly the impugned order

is maintained and affirmed. In sequel, the instant petition is

r to
dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(Sureshwar Thakur)
Judge.

22nd May, 2019.

(Rohit)

28/05/2019 21:56:13 :::HCHP