CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Civil Revision No.2900 of 2018 (OM)
Date of Decision: 29.05.2019
Ankit Bhardwaj ….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. Dilpreet Singh Takkar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent.
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
CM No.12035-CII of 2019
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same
is allowed. Accompanying document Annexure P-3 is taken on
. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the
order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge,
Jalandhar vide which the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’) was
1 of 6
30-06-2019 01:23:16 :::
CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 2
. Respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act
for a decree of divorce. During pendency of the aforesaid
petition, petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the
Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation
expenses. The marriage took place between the parties on
29.10.2012 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Marriage was
cohabited, but no issue was born out of the wedlock.
. The Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar vide the impugned
order dated 13.12.2017 dismissed the application for grant of
maintenance pendente lite, but allowed litigation expenses to
the tune of Rs.8,000/- in favour of the petitioner.
. In the application under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, the petitioner has pleaded that she is doing a job,
but her salary is not enough to meet out her expenses and she
is totally dependent upon her parents. She claimed that
respondent is involved in the business of manufacturing
banners and is owner of the shop from where he is operating
his business and he is earning more than Rs.1.5 lakhs per
month. Petitioner further claimed that she has right to live as per
status of her husband.
. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
petitioner started working after filing of the divorce petition. The
maintenance cannot be refused to the petitioner on the ground
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-06-2019 01:23:16 :::
CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 3
that she was educated, professionally qualified and capable of
earning income. When the petitioner was not earning anything
at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act,
interim maintenance can be granted as the husband/respondent
was capable to pay maintenance.
. Learned counsel relied upon SectionManish Jain vs.
Akansha Jain, 2017(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 682 on the premise that
respondent cannot deny interim maintenance during pendency
of the divorce petition and the petitioner was not earning
anything at the time of filing of the divorce petition.
. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the petitioner is also earning handsome salary
from M/s Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel by
relying upon SectionRajni vs. Rajbir Singh, 2018(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 798
contended that when both husband and wife are earning
independently, the petitioner-wife is not entitled to grant of any
maintenance pendente lite for herself.
. Vide order dated 15.12.2018, learned counsel for the
parties were directed to file prima facie material in respect of
monthly income of the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner undertook to produce salary slip of the petitioner,
whereas learned counsel for the respondent undertook to
produce income tax returns of the respondent.
3 of 6
30-06-2019 01:23:17 :::
CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 4
. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced salary
certificate issued by the M/s Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd.,
which shows that petitioner is an employee of M/s Akbar Travels
of India Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar and is working as a counter
executive w.e.f. 18.07.2016 till date. Petitioner is getting salary
of Rs.23,379/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent
has only produced income tax returns for the assessment years
2014-15, 2015-16 and 2018-19 that too today in Court only.
. Evidently, respondent is an income tax assesee. As per
income tax return for the assessment year of 2018-19, the gross
income of the respondent is shown to be Rs.3,64,190/-.
. Learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that
petitioner has liability towards old ailing father and unmarried
sister. The amount of Rs.23,379/- per month is only a meagre
amount, whereas the respondent is earning handsome amount
from his business and the income tax returns are not the true
picture of his real income which he has concealed in order to
evade payment of tax.
. At this stage, no firm finding in respect of income of the
respondent can be made. It is a settled principle of law that
respondent has moral obligation to maintain his wife and the
wife is entitled to lead her life as per status of her husband. For
making assessment in respect of monthly income of the
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-06-2019 01:23:17 :::
CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 5
husband some guess work can be done for assessing prima
facie income for the grant of maintenance pendente lite in
favour of the wife.
. It is also a settled principle of law that the maintenance
cannot be granted for undue enrichment of the wife so as to
impede likely reconciliation in future. Maintenance pendente lite
is meant to prevent destitution and vagrancies of the wife. It is
equally true that the wife is also entitled to lead her life
according to the status of her husband.
. Petitioner is also earning and she is also not expected
to squeeze out the husband/respondent. At the time of filing of
the divorce petition, the petitioner was not earning anything. As
per the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
the petitioner is having liability towards her old ailing father, who
was earlier maintaining the petitioner. Petitioner is having one
unmarried sister and she is looking after her also. On the other
hand, respondent has also some liability towards his family.
. Looking to the business prospects and monthly income
of the respondent, it would be just and expedient to direct the
respondent to pay maintenance pendente lite to the tune of
Rs.10,000/- per month. By grant of such maintenance, the
petitioner would not get any undue enrichment in any manner,
rather she would feel secured to some extent as her job is only
5 of 6
30-06-2019 01:23:17 :::
CR No.2900 of 2018 (OM) 6
private in nature. The said amount would suffice to prevent
destitution and vagrancy and would not undue enrich the
petitioner in any manner.
. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I partially
accept the prayer made in the revision petition to the extent of
awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance
pendente lite payable to the petitioner from the date of filing of
the application. The award of amount of Rs.8,000/- as litigation
expenses shall remain the same. Ordered accordingly. Petition
stands partially accepted.
May 29, 2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 30-06-2019 01:23:17 :::