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 :::