C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision.17.11.2018

Vishal Thakur ……Petitioner
Vs
Ruchi Thakur …Respondent

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present: Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.

-.-

AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been directed at the

instance of the husband against the order dated 09.02.2017 whereby

the application of the respondent-wife submitted under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite by

awarding maintenance @`5000/- per month, has been allowed.

Mr. Surinder Thakur, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the facts revealed from

the impugned order, concededly the respondent-wife is working in

the JCT Limited and drawing salary of `10,600/- per month whereas

the petitioner is serving as Lecturer in Lovely Professional

University, drawing an income of `26,000/- per month. He has to

look after after his old parents. In such circumstances, the salary

earned by the respondent was sufficient for her to enjoy the amenities

which she had been enjoying before the matrimonial dispute.

On the other hand, Mr. Gurmeet Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no

1 of 2
30-12-2018 01:11:26 :::
C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (OM) -2-

illegality and perversity in the order based upon the decision of this

Court as wife is entitled to enjoy the same amenities which she had

been enjoying in the company of the husband, thus, prays for

dismissal of the revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the

paper book and of the view that once the income of the parties is not

in dispute, the decision of the Court below while relying upon the

ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in Rajwant Kaur Vs. Jagdeep

Singh 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 90 holding that the wife is entitled to

same amenities had she been staying with her husband is correct

view. But in the present case, the wife is herself earning certain

amount, therefore, in such circumstances, the amount is liable to be

modified.

In view of the aforementioned facts, the order under

challenge is modified and the maintenance pendente lite is reduced

from `5000/- to `4000/- per month with no change in the litigation

expenses. The revision petition is disposed of.

(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
November 17, 2018
Pankaj*
Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes

Whether Reportable No

2 of 2
30-12-2018 01:11:26 :::