C.R. No. 4961 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4961 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.08.2010 Dr. Dinesh Dhania .......... Petitioner Versus Charu Dhania ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 27.5.2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the District Judge, vide which the application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands allowed. The respondent / wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of decree of restitution of Conjugal rights against the respondent / husband. The respondent / wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite by pleading therein, that the petitioner / husband was a Doctor by profession and earning more than Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per month, whereas she had no source of C.R. No. 4961 of 2010 -2- ***** income. The application was contested by the petitioner / husband, by pleading, that the wife was practicing lawyer and was earning more than Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. In support of the assertion that respondent / wife was practicing lawyer, reliance was placed on the Directory of the Bar Association, showing her to be the member of the Association, wherein enrollment number of the wife was also mentioned. The petitioner / husband denied the income of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) per month and claimed, that he was working in the pay scale of Rs. 10,940-355-11650. The averments made by the husband clearly showed, that he is trying to conceal the actual income, by just mentioning the pay scale, in which he was working, without disclosing his actual income. The learned trial Court on the available material on record came to the conclusion, that it is admitted by the petitioner / husband that he was a Doctor by profession and was working in the pay scale of Rs. 10,940-355-11650, the actual income of the petitioner would be much more. In view of the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month to the respondent / wife as maintenance along with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending therein, that the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to grant C.R. No. 4961 of 2010 -3- ***** maintenance to the spouse, who has no independent source of income, and once it is proved, that spouse has some income, she or he would not be entitled to any maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that the application moved by the petitioner for issuance of interrogatories was wrongly rejected by the learned trial Court, thereby he was denied the opportunity to prove the income of the respondent / wife. This plea deserves to be rejected straightway, the order passed on application for interrogatories is not under challenge, before this Court. The only evidence available with the Court was the admission of the husband, that he was working in the pay scale of Rs. 10,940-355-11650, therefore, his income could not be said to be in any way less than Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) can not be said to be, in any way, excessive, as the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is only to grant maintenance to the non-earning party, but also to allow her status equal to that of her husband. No ground for interference, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. 09.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE