IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision : 26.2.2018
Sandeep Sandal ……. Petitioner
Sandeep Kaur ……. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Respondent-wife in person.
1. Whether the Reporters of local newspaper may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?
KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)
Impugned in the present revision petition is the order dated
6.4.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar, vide which in an application filed by respondent-wife under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) in a divorce
petition filed by petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Act, an amount
of ` 12,000/- per month was ordered to be paid as maintenance pendente lite
to respondent-wife from the date of application and ` 10,000/- as litigation
expenses were also allowed.
The short facts which are required to be noticed are that the
marriage of the parties was solemnized on 14.2.2015. After the marriage
wife-respondent was not taken to Italy. Petitioner-husband is settled in Italy
and stated to be earning his livelihood there. The divorce petition under
Section 13 of the Act was filed in January 2017.
1 of 3
10-03-2018 23:32:58 :::
CR-4783-2017 (OM) -2-
The trial Court has taken the view that as per the internet
information, income of a labourer in Italy is more than 2000/- Euros per
month. Therefore, considering the boarding, lodging and traveling expenses
and medicines etc. of husband, it is observed that husband is in a position to
save atleast 400/- Euros per month, therefore, ` 12,000/- per month was
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the
certificate dated 28.4.2017 (Annexure P-5), petitioner is unemployed.
It comes out that the impugned order was passed on 6.4.2017
and subsequently, the certificate was obtained on 28.4.2017 by filing a self
declaration before the authorities, wherein, the status is given to be as an
unmarried which is a criminal offence in Italy, as per the declaration itself.
It goes to show that after an adverse order was passed by the
Court, present petitioner in order to avoid the payment of maintenance,
temporarily got himself unemployed whereas it is not a case that before the
said date, he was unemployed. The value of Euro is around ` 80 nowadays,
therefore, `12,000/- comes equal to 150 Euros, which the petitioner-
husband can easily pay. Otherwise, petitioner is able bodied person and
even if he is unemployed, he can earn his livelihood and maintain his wife.
In view of above, no ground to interfere in the order dated
6.4.2017, (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Jalandhar is made out.
2 of 3
10-03-2018 23:32:59 :::
CR-4783-2017 (OM) -3-
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
matter may be referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
I am of the view that since both the parties belong to Jalandhar,
it will be appropriate that trial Court should refer the case to the Mediation
and Conciliation Centre, Jalandhar.
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: No
3 of 3
10-03-2018 23:32:59 :::