C.R. No.3670 of 2019 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.3670 of 2019 (OM)
Date of Decision.30.05.2019
Vivek …Petitioner
Vs
Smt. Indoo Yadav and others …Respondents
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition is directed against the
impugned order whereby in an application under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent-wife has been awarded a sum of
`10,000/- as maintenance pendente lite and `11,000/- as litigation
expenses.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
husband submits that the order under challenge is totally erroneous
and the maintenance pendente lite awarded is on higher side, as there
is no proof of income of the petitioner, which has been noticed by the
trial Court but in the penultimate paragraph conjecturally assessed the
income as `25,000/- and awarded `10,000/- as maintenance, though
the application was only under Section 24 and not Section 26 of the
Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent wife is having degree of
Computer Application and drawing a salary of `19,000/- and odd
amount and the certificate of the employer revealed salary of
`41,900/-, thus, the order under challenge is not sustainable.
1 of 2
23-06-2019 08:44:12 :::
C.R. No.3670 of 2019 (OM) -2-
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised
the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit as
admittedly out of marriage, there is a child which is in custody of the
wife. Though there is no such prayer under Section 26, amount of
maintenance pendent lite awarded under Section 24 can always be
construed to be under Section 26. It is pious duty of the husband to
look after the wife as well as the minor child. The maintenance
pendente lite has to be according to the status. Though the
respondent wife has placed on record certain documents but the same
do not prove income of the husband. In the absence of any proof,
income assessed as `25,000/- per month for awarding maintenance, in
my view, cannot be said to be a figment of imagination.
In view of aforementioned facts, I do not find any
illegality and infirmity in the order under challenge. No ground for
interference is made out.
Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
May 30, 2019
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
2 of 2
23-06-2019 08:44:12 :::