Civil Revision No.5678 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5678 of 2008 Date of decision : 13.1.2009 Rishi Pal .....Petitioner Versus Poonam ...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. The respondent-wife, besides filing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), also filed a plea under Section 24 of the Act for the litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite. The petitioner-husband resisted the plea aforementioned by averring, in the course of the counter filed to the plea under Section 24 of the Act, that the wife is dis-entitled from claiming litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite as she had remarried in the meantime. The petitioner-husband also insisted that issues on point of factual controversy be framed in the first instance before adjudicating upon the entitlement or otherwise of the wife to the requested relief. Learned Additional District Judge declined to frame the issues in the context of the disposal of plea under Section 24 of the Act. It also noticed that the plea, in the context of second marriage, could not be accepted in view of the fact that a similar averment had not been made by Civil Revision No.5678 of 2008 -2- **** the petitioner-husband in the course of the counter filed in the main petition. By the very nature of things, an able bodied husband cannot evade liability to maintain his estranged wife who has no means of sustenance for self. The essential idea in the context is to provide means of sustenance to a resource-less wife who is also to be enabled thereby to meet the litigation expenses which she may not be able to afford for want of financial incapacity. In that view of things, it would be illogical for the petitioner-husband to insist upon the framing of issues before the question of entitlement or otherwise of the wife to award of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite is disposed of. This observation assumes added relevance in the context of the facts available on the record of this case. It is apparent from the record that the allegation pertaining to second marriage of the wife was not made in the course of the counter filed by the petitioner-husband in the main petition. In that view of things, it is illogical for the husband to raise that plea in the course of the counter filed to the plea under Section 24 of the Act. What has not been averred in the main petition, (which is based upon the verified pleadings) cannot be allowed to be averred in the course of a counter to an interim application. It would be particularly so when there is not even an argument that any steps are being taken to amend the averment made in the course of counter to the main petition. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be totally devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 13, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE