C.R. No. 5927 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5927 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.09.2010 Pushpinder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Maninder Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Ms. Reena Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 5.6.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands declined. The respondent / wife moved a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance. The petitioner thought that offence was the best form of defence, therefore, instead of contesting the application moved by the respondent / wife, the petitioner / husband chose to file application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite @ ` 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand C.R. No. 5927 of 2010 -2- ***** only) per month along with litigation expenses, on the ground, that the wife was running a sweet shop under the name and style of M/s Lovely Sweets shop at Begowal, District Kapurthala and earning ` 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month. It is also the case of the petitioner, that beside earning ` 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month respondent / wife being qualified teacher is earning ` 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month by way of tuition. The petitioner claimed maintenance and litigation expenses by pleading, that he met with an accident, therefore, was unable to move about, and had no independent source of income, therefore, was entitled to maintenance pendente lite. The application was contested by denying the averments made in the application. The accident of the petitioner was said to have taken place long back, and that he was physically fit. She also pleaded, that the petitioner / husband, is a rich man, he owns immovable property worth crores. Further the petitioner / husband had sold number of properties worth crores of rupees, and he was said to own other properties,in addition to the sold one. The learned trial Court held, that there was no evidence of income of the respondent, as Lovely Sweet shop was being run by the father of the respondent, not by the wife, as alleged by the petitioner in application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned trial Court also held that no positive evidence was on record to prove the income of the wife. The learned trial Court further held, that no prima facie C.R. No. 5927 of 2010 -3- ***** evidence produced, in proof of the allegations made in the application under Section 24. Thus on the pleadings and circumstances of the case, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ordered to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the learned trial Court failed to take note of the income of the respondent / wife, and also that the petitioner had met with an accident, and was not capable to earning anything. No evidence was led by the respondent with regard to the income earned by the petitioner by way of sale deed etc. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Matrimonial Court was right in holding, that the petitioner husband had immovable and moveable property, and specific details of property sold were given in reply filed. Furthermore the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to income of the respondent were totally vague and not supported by any documentary evidence. The finding of the learned Matrimonial Court is based on correct appreciation of pleading and material on record. No ground therefore, is made out to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 15.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE