Civil Revision No.5064 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5064 of 2007 Date of decision : 13.1.2009 Vajinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajni Rani ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Swaraj Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. A petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife, is pending consideration of the learned District Judge, Jind. In the course thereof, the respondent-wife filed a plea under Section 24 of the Act for the award of litigation expenses (Rs.11,000/-) and maintenance pendente-lite at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month. The pure and simple averment made by the respondent-wife was that she has no means of sustenance for self and that the appellant-husband, who is a tailor by profession and also has income from dairy farming, had neglected to maintain her. The plea was resisted by the appellant-husband by raising a plea that he has already paid a sum of Rs.47,000/- to the respondent-wife in full and final settlement of her claim for maintenance. It is common ground otherwise that the parties did initially file Civil Revision No.5064 of 2007 -2- **** a plea under Section 13-B of the Act for dissolution of their marriage. At the time of presentation of the petition, both the parties made a statement supportive of their inclination of dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. However, when the matter was taken up by the concerned Court on 7.4.2006 (after the statutory period of six months was over), the appellant-husband backed out and told the Court that he wants to resume co-habitation with the respondent-wife and that he was not interested in divorcing her. In the light of that statement, the joint petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has shown to the court an affidavit sworn by the parties with regard to the fact that the appellant-husband had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.47,000/- in all to the wife. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs.25,000/- had been paid on 26.9.2005 and the balance amount was paid on 28.12.2005. However, it cannot be ignored from consideration that the appellant-husband did not standby the agreement to dissolve the marriage. In that view of things, he cannot be heard to resist the plea raised by the respondent-wife for the award of maintenance pendente-lite. If the 'deal' had been effectuated in toto, it would have obviously estopped the respondent-wife from claiming any maintenance from the appellant-husband. It was the appellant- husband who backed out and forced the respondent-wife into another litigation (by filing a plea afresh for dissolution of marriage). It is not open to him to deny the entitlement of the respondent-wife to litigation expenses and also maintenance pendente-lite. It is particularly so when it is not the plea on behalf of the appellant-husband that he is unable to earn livelihood and that he has no means of livelihood. It is also not averred on behalf of the appellant-husband that respondent-wife has independent means of sustenance for self. It is established law otherwise that an able bodied Civil Revision No.5064 of 2007 -3- **** husband is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife. In the light of the fore-going discussion, I do not find any cause for interference with the judicial discretion exercised by the learned District Judge, Jind. The plea being denuded of merit is ordered to be dismissed. January 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE