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 :::