1 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.07.2009 Puneet Bansal --- Petitioner Versus Chanchal --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for the respondent. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order will dispose of two Revision Petitions, viz. Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 and Civil Revision No. 1022 of 2009, filed by Puneet Bansal, petitioner-husband (to be referred to as “husband” hereinafter) as the same arise out of the same facts and are between the same parties. Chanchal, respondent-wife (for facility to be referred to as “wife”) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the present petitioner. The wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of pendente lite and litigation 2 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 expenses in the divorce proceedings. It was averred by her that she had no source of income for her survival. The husband was serving in a Company at Hyderabad and was earning a sum of Rs. 70,000/- per month. There is no liability of any kind on the husband as his parents were pensioners and his brother was already employed. It was, thus, prayed that she may be awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as maintenance pendent lite, Rs. 5500/- as counsel’s fee and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses. The petition was contested on behalf of the husband who pleaded that the wife was already getting a sum of Rs. 900/- per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and moreover, she was well educated and had been working with Everson Systems, Delhi and had been drawing handsome pay. On other hand, he had the responsibility to maintain his old parents. On these premise, it was vehemently pleaded that the wife was not entitled to claim any maintenance from the husband. The Additional District Judge, Mansa accepted the application under Section 24 of the Act and granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendent lite to the wife from the date of filing of the above petition and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses, vide order dated 18.2.2008 and it is this order which the husband has impugned in Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008. In so far as the second revision petition is concerned, the same has been directed against the order dated 24.12.2008, (Annexure P-5 in the said petition) which was passed on an 3 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 application under Section 24 of the Act moved by the wife for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act initiated by the husband. The trial court, on consideration of the averments made by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses, vide order dated 24.12.2008. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the impunged orders. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has not correctly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner-husband and, thus, the maintenance pendente lite fixed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month was on the higher side. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-husband could not be held liable to pay maintenance pendente lite as awarded separately in two different proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel in other words is that in any case, the wife can have single payment of the maintenance pendente lite notwithstanding the fact that she had been separately awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month each in two proceedings. Concentrating on the first submission, it may be noticed that the trial court after taking note of the projected statement of income of the husband, which had been placed on the record of those proceedings by the husband himself, showing his gross salary as Rs. 5,96,830/- and further excluding the amount that might be 4 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 required to be paid as income-tax, assessed the income of the husband at Rs. 4,80,000/- per annum; in other words a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per month. The trial court, thus, having regard to the above income of the husband and other relevant circumstances awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, besides granting litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show by reference to any material on record or otherwise that the wife was not entitled to maintenance pendente lite or that the amount of pendente lite granted to her was higher. In the opinion of this Court also, the maintenance pendente lite granted by the trial court under both the orders impugned in the two petitions is quite reasonable and appropriate and there is no illegality in the impugned orders, inasmuch the quantum of maintenance pendente lite is concerned. In so far as the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it deserves to be mentioned in the first instance that both the parties brought to the notice of this Court an undisputed fact that in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the amount of maintenance which was earlier fixed at Rs. 900/- per month was ultimately enhanced to Rs. 2000/-. The trial court, while considering the respondent-wife’s prayer in Section 24 proceedings did not comment upon at all about the amount of maintenance granted in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though a specific averment was made on behalf of the petitioner-husband in the reply to the 5 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 petition under Section 24 of the Act that the respondent-wife was already getting maintenance in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the payment of maintenance pendente lite payable under Section 24 is concerned, the trial court while disposing of the application under Section 24 of the Act moved by the respondent took cognizance of the fact that an equal amount had already been granted to her in similar application moved in divorce proceedings and accordingly passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2008. The observations of the trial court made in the said context need to be and are, thus, noticed here: “Moreover, the respondent-applicant shall be entitled to maintenance pendente lite for the same period either in divorce petition or in the present proceedings. So in my opinion, the respondent-applicant is entitled to maintenance pendente lite at the rate at which she has been granted maintenance pendente lite in the divorce petition.” Above apart, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have very fairly conceded that since the maintenance pendente is awarded to provide monetary assistance to such spouse who was incapable of supporting him/her, the other spouse who is held liable to pay such maintenance cannot be burdened doubly. It was, thus, agreed in principle by the counsel for the parties that though two different amount of maintenance pendente lite in two 6 Civil Revision No. 1613 of 2008 separate proceedings have been granted to the wife, but the husband can be asked to pay single amount only. In the wake of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the orders impugned in the aforesaid petitions. It is, however, made plain on record that the maintenance granted in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings shall be adjustable towards the amount granted in the two applications under Section 24 of the Act, and similarly, the husband shall pay only single maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Act at a time, notwithstanding the fact that such maintenance has been granted in two similar proceedings. Both the petitions would, thus, stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) July 13, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK*