CWP No.11141 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11141 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 23, 2010 Lt. Col. Satya Saran ….Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for respondent No.6. VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure P1), vide which respondent No.6-wife of the petitioner has been granted maintenance under the Army Rules. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was commissioned in the Army on 19.12.1992. On 14.12.2004, respondent No.6-wife of the petitioner gave her son in adoption to the Lt. Col. Soami Nath Chadha and Smt. Sant Pyari Chadha. Respondent No.6 was a divorcee and was married with the petitioner on 11.08.2005. On 12.05.2007 a daughter was born to the couple. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.01.2008, respondent No.6-wife left the matrimonial home of her own accord and is living separately from the petitioner. She moved an application to the Army Authorities for grant of maintenance as per Army rules. The petitioner was asked to give his comments on the application - CWP No.11141 of 2008 made by respondent No.6. After considering the comments of the petitioner and coming to a conclusion that the parties had a matrimonial dispute and that they are living separately, passed the impugned order (Annexure P1), vide which respondent-wife was granted maintenance @27.5% of the salary drawn by the petitioner, this included the maintenance payable to the minor daughter i.e. 22% for the wife and 5.5% for the daughter. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that under the Army rules wife is entitled to the maintenance, but the contention of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the authorities have fixed the maximum pension without applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending therein that the provisions for grant of maximum maintenance cannot be treated to be mandatory for the reasons that the Army authorities can refuse to pay the maintenance, in case, it is established, that the estranged wife, is living in adultery or without sufficient cause has refused to live with the husband. She can be denied maintenance also in case they are living separately by mutual consent. The rules further provide that in such event the parties can take recourse to the ordinary civil law. This contention of the petitioner is denied by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, by contending that maximum maintenance payable under the rules is 33% and not 27.5% as alleged by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has referred to the Army orders, which is reproduced in Para 16 of the writ petition on which the counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance. The reading of Army order shows that the maximum has not been allowed to respondent-wife. - CWP No.11141 of 2008 A perusal of the order dated 05.06.2008 (Annexure P1) further shows that the petitioner’s comments were called before passing order of grant of maintenance to the wife. The contention of the petitioner that expenses which the petitioner is incurring has not been taken into consideration is also misconceived as it is well settled law that for fixing the maintenance payable to the wife, the voluntary deductions by the husband are required to be ignored. A reading of the impugned order further shows that the maintenance granted is 27.5% of the salary drawn by the petitioner, therefore, this cannot be said to be arbitrary or not taking into consideration the compulsory deductions from the salary. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the authorities have not taken note of the income of the wife, while assessing the maintenance. This contention again can not be accepted as it was for the petitioner to move to the authority to prove this assertion by leading evidence to show where she was employed. Mere allegations/assertions which stand denied cannot be taken as gospel truth by this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Army authorities in accordance with the rules, which are not disputed. No merit. Dismissed. 23.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) vcgarg JUDGE -