CR No. 7981 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7981 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 9.12.2010 Gurpreet Singh ......petitioner vs. Paramjit Kaur @ Kamalpreet Kaur ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court 13.10.2010 whereby Rs. 4,000/- was awarded as maintenance pendente lite and Rs 3,000/- as litigation expenses. The grievance of the petitioner is that Rs. 3,00,000/- was earlier paid to the respondent to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but having received the said amount, respondent has not earlier agreed for mutual divorce and now sought maintenance pendente lite without disclosing the receipt of the said amount. Learned trial Court has considered this fact and found that the said amount is towards the expenses of marriage and the cost of dowry articles and not the amount of maintenance. The said finding recorded by learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from patent illegality or irregularity. The lumpsum payment made to the petitioner even before filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have been found to be towards the expenses of marriage and cost of dowry articles. Even otherwise, the said amount may CR No. 7981 of 2010 -2- not generate sufficient income for the maintenance of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned trial Court has not determined the income of the petitioner and therefore, the maintenance awarded @ Rs. 4,000/- is highly excessive. The assertion of the wife is that the petitioner is a property dealer and has five acres of land. The stand of the petitioner is that he is not earning anything and is dependent upon his father. The petitioner is a young man of 24 years and mere denial that he is not earning anything and dependent upon the income of his father is a routine defence so as to avoid payment of maintenance. Petitioner having married with respondent as an able bodied person is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. It cannot be said that the petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means to pay maintenance. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 9.12.2010 preeti