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 :::