SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sandeep Singh Dhillon vs Anupreet Kular on 5 February, 2018



CR-3774-2017 (OM)
Date of decision : 5.2.2018

Sandeep Singh Dhillon ……. Petitioner
Anupreet Kular ……. Respondent


Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sharad Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Mehnidaratta, Advocate for respondent.

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 ?


Impugned in the present revision petition is the order dated

11.4.2017 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge,

Ludhiana vide which while deciding the application filed by respondent-

wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, during the

pendency of divorce petition, maintenance pendente lite @ ` 33,000/- per

month to the respondent-wife was allowed in addition to ` 15,000/- as

litigation expenses.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused

the case file.

1 of 3
12-02-2018 04:45:34 :::
CR-3774-2017 (OM) -2-

The admitted position is that parties were married on

28.11.2009 at Ludhiana. No child was born out of the wedlock. Petitioner-

husband is employed with Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mumbai.

As per the salary certificate produced before this Court but not produced

before the trial Court, the total income is little more than ` 1.00 lac.

However, after deductions the carry home salary is approximately

` 53,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is

deaf and having speech impairment.

Learned trial Court has taken the view that previously

respondent-wife was working as a Lecturer but now she is out of job and

cannot maintain herself, therefore, 1/3rd of the salary of the petitioner was

allowed as maintenance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the

income tax returns of respondent-wife for the year 2015-2016 and 2016-

2017 which show that she has shown the income of little more than

` 2,60,000/- per annum. The income shown in the last return for the year

2016-017 is ` 2,66,030/- comes to little over ` 22,000/- per month.

On behalf of the respondent-wife, it is stated that the she was

getting certain dividends. Now she has sold the shares and she now is

without any income. Her profile Annexure P-5 is not denied by learned

counsel for respondent which shows that respondent is M. Phil. She is

otherwise post graduate in English. It is also not denied that the father of

respondent-wife is running an English Student Centre which is for private


2 of 3
12-02-2018 04:45:35 :::
CR-3774-2017 (OM) -3-

The allegations leveled on behalf of petitioner-husband are that

respondent-wife is the Director as well as the faculty of the said centre and

is having sufficient income. However, there is nothing on the record to

support such averments.

Considering the entirety of the circumstances; carry home

salary of the petitioner; the fact that respondent is highly qualified and has

the capacity to earn the maintenance awarded of ` 33,000/- per month is

considered to be excessive. Considering that as per the last two income tax

returns of the respondent i.e. for the year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, she has

the monthly income of little more than ` 22,000/-, I am of the view that

while living in industrial town of Ludhiana, she can maintain herself with

the total income of ` 40,000/-. In these circumstances, ` 18,000/- per month

maintenance will meet the ends of justice. The revision petition is party

allowed. The interim maintenance is reduced from ` 33,000/- to ` 18,000/-

per month whereas the litigation expenses are maintained.

Revision is partly allowed.

Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: No

3 of 3
12-02-2018 04:45:35 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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