Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 Date of decision. 09.12.2011 Sanjeev Sharma .... Petitioner Versus Sulaxmi Sharma ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Sushma Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sanjeev Sharma, the respondent is in revision before me under the provisions of 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/modifying the order dated 07.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide which maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and litigation expenses has been awarded in a sum of Rs.5500/- under the provisions of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'). Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 --2-- In the petition brought for a decree of divorce by Sanjeev Sharma, the petitioner, Sulaxmi Sharma, respondent had filed an application under section 24 of the Act and prayed for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. She had claimed in her application that she had no source of income of her own and that her husband was earning Rs.90,000/- per month by working as a Senior Officer in HDFC Bank. According to her, she had been dragged into this litigation by her husband. She had also claimed that her husband had earlier filed an application under section 9 of the Act but withdrew the same. She had, therefore, prayed for a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The application has been opposed by the husband, who has denied his earning Rs.90,000/- per month, though he has admitted that he has been working with a private bank. He has further claimed that he had come to know from reliable sources that his wife is working in a reputed concern. According to him, her conduct was never conducive for reconciliation and in that situation, he had withdrawn his petition under section 9 of the Act. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Ambala has decided the application vide the impugned order granting maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses in the sums mentioned as above. Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the amounts awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, as maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, the husband has brought this revision petition. I have heard Ms. Sushma Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-wife is a well educated woman and she has also been earning handsome amount for her maintenance. According to her, she is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband. She has further submitted that though the salary of the petitioner from HDFC Bank is in a sum of Rs.63,780/- yet his carry home salary is quite less. According to her, besides a sum of Rs.7668/- paid by him as installment towards automobile loan, he is repaying home loan of Rs.15,50,000/- and monthly installment of the same is Rs.22,157/-. According to her, the amount left with the petitioner as carry home salary is less than Rs.30,000/- per month and that he has got his parents and other responsibilities to meet from the salary. According to her, the amount awarded by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala is therefore, nowhere near a reasonable amount. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed the respondent-wife to be a well educated person and earning for her maintenance, she has not been able to submit the particulars of her employment and salary. Therefore the submission in this regard appears to be just a submission made with a view to avoid payment of maintenance pendente lite which carries no weight. Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 --4-- The wife has been justified in claiming that her husband is a Senior Officer with HDFC Bank. His salary is Rs.63,780/- for the month of November 2011. The deduction in the name of provident fund and income tax are only in a sum of Rs.6676/- and, therefore, the amount in his hand is Rs.57,000/- approximately. Out of it, if we take out a sum of Rs.7668/- as monthly installment of automobile loan, still the husband is left with a sum around Rs.50000/- in his hand. Now comes the aspect of home loan, which he claims to have been availed in a sum of Rs.15,50,000/-. The installment of this loan in the month of April 2011 was Rs.15038/- and when this litigation commenced, in anticipation of facing an application for maintenance pendente lite, he might have got the EMI increased to Rs.22,157/-. Thus, the approach of the petitioner in the matter cannot be said to be bona fide. It is not the case of the petitioner that before availing the home loan, he was homeless. Thus, he has taken loan to acquire the immovable asset and the EMI paid on that account cannot be taken to decrease the income in the hands of the husband. If for example the husband avails a bigger loan, the EMI of which is in higher amount, which leaves a very meager amount in the hands of the husband, can it be said that the wife is not entitled to get any amount as maintenance pendente lite. In my opinion, the answer to this question has been is in the negative. A husband cannot reduce his carry home salary in this way to deny maintenance pendente lite to the wife. Civil Revision No. 7621 of 2011 --5-- In these circumstances, the income of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be reduced to a sum below Rs.30000/- per month. Learned Additional District Judge, Ambala has been aware of the fact that the wife is entitled to the same standard of life as is lived by the husband and he has rightly fixed the pendente lite at Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, finding no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 09.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh