C.R. No.7112 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7112 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 29.10.2010. Keshav Sharma .....Petitioner Versus Bindu Sharma ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.27626-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Keshav Sharma has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.09.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad thereby granting maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.10000/- to the respondent wife Bindu Sharma on her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act). The petitioner has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent. Respondent in her application alleged that she has no source of income whereas the petitioner- husband is earning Rs.8 lacs to Rs.9 lacs per month as he is running his own nursing home in Faridabad and also has residential house of C.R. No.7112 of 2010 (O & M) -2- 500 square yards. The petitioner also has 3 other flats in Faridabad. The respondent-wife claimed Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner husband admitted that he is running nursing home at Faridabad. However, he pleaded that his income was just Rs.3,94,210/- per annum as depicted in his income tax return. He was also paying installments of the house at Bhadurgarh. The respondent-wife was serving in the petitioner's nursing home, earning Rs.9,220/- per month as salary. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide impugned order granted Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.15000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-wife. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner husband has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that income of the petitioner husband is proved to be Rs.3,94,210/- as per his latest income tax return for the financial year 2008-09 and he was having lesser income in the preceding years as depicted by his income tax returns. It was contended that 1/5th of the income of the husband should be granted as maintenance pendente lite to the wife. Reliance has been placed on various judgments namely Kiran Sejwal (Smt.) versus Yesh Dev Singh Sejwal, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 419, Rohini versus R. Durairaj, 2005(3) RCR (Civil) 81, Smt. Parkash Kaur versus Harbhajan Dass, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 421 C.R. No.7112 of 2010 (O & M) -3- and Smt. Laxmi Oram @ Toppo versus Birsa Oram, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 134. It was also contended that petitioner has deposited Rs.3,80,000/- in the bank account of respondent-wife in view of settlement between the parties for mutual separation (divorce) during the pendency of the divorce petition. I have carefully considered the contentions, but find no merit therein. The petitioner-husband himself depicted his income to be around Rs.33,000/- per month as per his income tax return. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that a professional medical practitioner running a nursing home would not depict his actual total income in the income tax return. The petitioner had even been showning the payment of Rs.9,220/- per month as salary to the respondent-wife while their relations had not soureds. This was also apparently a ploy to save income tax. Now respondent-wife is not admittedly serving in the nursing home of the petitioner-husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner after seeking instructions from the petitioner, who is present in person, states that petitioner has also one flat in Faridabad. Obviously, the petitioner must be having some rental income from the said flat because he has separate house for his residence. Accordingly, keeping in view the income of the petitioner and other circumstances, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.15000/- per month as granted by the Family Court cannot be said to be excessive. The contention of the petitioner that he paid Rs.3,80,000/- to the respondent towards settlement for separation during pendency of the divorce petition, cannot be accepted at this stage because no such plea was even taken by the petitioner-husband in his reply to C.R. No.7112 of 2010 (O & M) -4- the application that the alleged payment of Rs.3,80,000/- was made pursuant to any such settlement for separation. Even otherwise during the pendency of the divorce petition, there would not have been any oral settlement for separation particularly when the petitioner is a medical practitioner and had also benefit of legal advice of the counsel engaged by him in the divorce petition. Admittedly, there is no document regarding the alleged settlement for separation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. 29.10.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE