SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tajinder Singh vs Kirandeep Kaur on 8 January, 2019

CR No.6056 of 2018(OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.6056 of 2018(OM)
Date of Decision: 08.01.2019

Tajinder Singh ……Petitioner

Versus

Kirandeep Kaur …..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:Mr. Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the

order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Additional District Judge,

Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the respondent

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. An

amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed as maintenance

pendente lite and an amount of Rs.7000/- was granted as

litigation expenses.

[2]. In pursuance of order dated 13.12.2018, both the

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2019 12:25:43 :::
CR No.6056 of 2018(OM) 2

parties are present along with their respective counsel. The

interaction with the parties did not yield any fruitful result in

terms of living together or parting ways.

[3]. Perusal of the record would show that both the parties

have levelled allegations and counter-allegations in terms of

contracting second marriage. The daughter from the first

marriage is residing with her Bua, whereas two children out of

said wedlock are living with the mother in the same house,

where petitioner is also living in a separate portion.

[4]. The allegations made by both the parties against each

other cannot be appreciated at this stage for want of any

authenticated material. The earning capacity of the petitioner

cannot be determined by any material at this stage. Petitioner is

a retired BSF personnel having pension to his credit. It has

come on record that he went to Cyprus for business. There are

assertions made by the petitioner that the respondent is earning

adequate amount from the business of beauty parlour as she

had passed beauty parlour course and knew work of beauty

parlour and was running beauty parlour and training centre. The

exact income from the aforesaid evocation cannot be proved

even on notional basis at this stage.

[5]. Evidently, the children out of the present wedlock are

studying in B.S.F. Senior Secondary School, Jalandhar Cantt.

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2019 12:25:43 :::
CR No.6056 of 2018(OM) 3

Respondent has shown the fee pay-in slip book for the year

2018-19 showing the factum of paying the fee by the

respondent for Chahat student of 12th class and Gurmehar

Singh student of 9th class.

[6]. Grant of maintenance pendente lite is not aimed to

enrich any of the spouse, rather the same is made to prevent

the destitution and vagrancies. Even if, the respondent is proved

to have evocation of beauty parlour, still the upbringment of the

minor children would require healthy amount in these days,

particularly when both the children are studying in 12th class and

9th class respectively. The award of Rs.10,000/- towards

maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be on higher side.

Respondent is entitled to live as per status of her husband. The

land holding of the petitioner would remain a debatable issue in

view of prima facie findings recorded by the trial Court and

evidence sought to be shown by the respondent during course

of hearing. Trial Court would make assessment of fact on the

basis of evidence likely to be led by the parties at appropriate

stage.

[7]. At this stage, no firm finding of fact can be recorded on

this aspect, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties.

In my considered opinion, the award of Rs.10,000/- as

maintenance pendente lite and Rs.7000/- towards litigation

3 of 4
20-01-2019 12:25:43 :::
CR No.6056 of 2018(OM) 4

expenses cannot be said to be on higher side. This revision

petition is found to be totally devoid of merits and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

08.01.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-01-2019 12:25:43 :::

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