C.R. No. 247 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 247 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.11.2011 Rajesh ....Petitioner. Versus Sonu @ Gayatri ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Shakun Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The husband-petitioner has impugned the order dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by the trial court on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act”) for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the respondent-wife. The trial court had directed the husband-petitioner to pay pendente lite maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of institution of application besides Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the amount of Rs.3000/- per month for maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial court was on the higher side. He further submitted that earlier the parties had effected compromise and permanent alimony to the tune of C.R. No. 247 of 2011 -2- Rs.90,000/- had been paid to the respondent. He also submitted that the respondent was a working lady and was drawing a salary of about Rs.10,000/- per month. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month was not only excessive but unjustified as well. 3. Opposing the prayer made by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order was just and fair and did not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. The trial court on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner was working as a teacher in a private school at Sonepat and was earning Rs.8000/- per month. Keeping in view the totality of facts and also that Rs.90,000/- had been paid at the time of filing of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, it was observed that the compromise was arrived at for Rs.1,80,000/- and the balance amount had not been paid as the petition under Section 13-B of the Act was instituted on 16.7.2009 and was dismissed in default owing to the absence of learned counsel for the parties on the same date. In such a situation, the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month along with litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- by the trial court cannot said to be on the higher side. The relevant observations recorded by the trial court are as under:- “5. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent is duty bound to maintain the petitioner who is not doing any work. She is totally C.R. No. 247 of 2011 -3- dependent upon her parents. The respondent has not disclosed his income so he is duty bound to disclose the same. The Ld. counsel prayed for acceptance of the application. The Ld. counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon Anil Kumar Sehgal Vs. Nisha 2007(1) LJR 57 and Padmavathi & ors. Vs. C. Lakshminarayana 2004(1) LJR 721. 6. The Ld. counsel for the respondent has contended that the respondent had paid huge amount in the shape of permanent alimony besides he had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- at the time of institution of the petition under Section 13-B of the Act for passing a decree for divorce on the basis of mutual consent of the parties. The petitioner thus has moved the instant petition as well as the application with ulterior motive. The application is not maintainable. The Ld. counsel in support of his contentions has referred to the documents viz. photocopy of petition under Section 13-B, the order dated 16.7.2009 vide which the aforesaid petition was dismissed in default. Application moved by the petitioner to S.P., District Sonepat, Haryana dated 7.04.2009, copy of list of dowry articles, the copy of compromise and the copy of FIR No. 19 dated 17.6.2009. 7. As per law cited by the counsel for the C.R. No. 247 of 2011 -4- petitioner, it is imperative upon the court to order maintenance to the petitioner-wife as she is unable to maintain herself and the respondent is duty bound to maintain her. The documents submitted by the respondent show that the petitioner instituted the criminal proceedings against the respondent and his family members. Though documents issued by Hyderabadi Hospital, Panipat, show that the respondent remained under treatment for the disease mentioned by him in his written statement but these documents do not constitute certificate terming the respondent as disclosed person or unable to perform any kind of work. In the petition under Section 13-B of the Act, it is mentioned that the settlement arrived at between the parties and the respondent will pay a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to petitioner for permanent alimony and future maintenance of her minor daughter Raghvi. Half of the amount i.e. a sum of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid at the time of filing of that petition and remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- shall be paid at the time of final disposal of the petition. The petition was instituted on 16.7.2009 and it was dismissed on the same date owing to the absence of the parties. This petition does not constitute receipt of Rs.90,000/- at the time of institution of the petition as well as remaining sum of Rs.90,000/- at the time C.R. No. 247 of 2011 -5- of final disposal of the petition. Since the respondent is duty bound to maintain the petitioner, therefore, he is directed to pay maintenance allowance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of institution of the application. The respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. For the reasons aforementioned the applicaton of petitioner Sonu @ Gayatri is accepted in these terms, whereas the application of respondent Rajesh stands dismissed.” 5. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. November 8, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE