Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.12.2010 Bimla Rani ....Petitioner Versus Surinder Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Wife is assailing order dated 11.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the wife/petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking pendente lite maintenance from the husband was rejected. Undisputedly, earlier both husband and wife were working as Judgment Writers in the Sessions Division, Ludhiana. Undisputedly, wife/petitioner got appointed as Income Tax Inspector in the Income Tax Department and is now working as Inspector Income Tax in the office of CIT, Ludhiana. Undisputedly, wife is getting Rs.12,635/- as monthly gross salary. Undisputedly, husband has taken voluntary retirement from the Sessions Division, Ludhiana, and now getting Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M) -2- monthly pension of Rs.4,308/- only. Learned counsel for the wife/petitioner vehemently argued that husband is also having monthly rental income about Rs.3,000/-. He further argued that husband is also having GPF to the tune of Rs.6,27,569/-. Learned counsel for the wife/petitioner further contended that both son and daughter, although major, who are studying, are with the petitioner. He further contends that all the expenses of major children are being paid by the petitioner and she is receiving no contribution from the respondent/husband. In view of the admitted fact that wife/petitioner is serving as Income Tax Inspector and getting monthly salary of Rs.12,635/-, I do not think, she is entitled for any pendente maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the opinion of this Court, expenses for the maintenance and education of the unemployed children can be sought and directed by the competent Court in separate appropriate proceedings. In the opinion of this Court Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should not be invoked for the purpose of education and other expenses of major children. Present petition is dismissed with the liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for recovery of education and other expenses of major children in accordance with law. (Alok Singh) Judge December 01, 2010 R.S.