IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision : 5.2.2018
Sandeep Singh Dhillon ……. Petitioner
Anupreet Kular ……. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
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 ?
KULDIP SINGH J. (ORAL)
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
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 :::