CR No. 4380 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4380 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.11.2011 Smt.Shweta Rathee ...Petitioner Vs. Devinder Singh Dahiya ...Respondent And CR No. 6144 of 2010 (O&M) Devinder Singh Dahiya ...Petitioner Vs. Smt.Shweta Rathee ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the respondent. --- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This order shall dispose of two petition Nos. 4380 and CR No. 4380 of 2010 2 6144 of 2010, titled as Smt.Shweta Rathee Vs. Devinder Singh Dahiya and Devinder Singh Dahiya Vs. Smt.Shweta Rathee arising out of common order dated 19.05.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat. During the pendency of petition for dissolution of marriage moved by the respondent Devender Singh Dahiya, the petitioner Smt.Shweta Rathee had moved an application for seeking maintenance pendentelite, which was accepted and the trial court vide impugned order dated 19.5.2010, granted maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, both the petitioner and the respondent have challenged the order. The petitioner contends that the respondent/husband is an Officer in Indian Air Force drawing a salary of Rs.60,000/- per month, besides Rs.10,000/- per annum from agriculture and he has other moveable and immovable properties. To the contrary, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is indulging into adulterous activities. She is Master in Mass Communication and working as General Assistant in Total TV from where she is drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. She is also having a bank account at Jind, whereas gross salary of the respondent is Rs.60,000/- per month but the carry home salary is Rs.12,000/- per month. He has also further averred that he has one handicapped brother Bijender who is 90% handicapped and remains CR No. 4380 of 2010 3 ill. He has to spend a lot on his treatment. He has also alleged that the parents of the petitioner are government employees. They have a house in urban estate at Jind. Thus, he has sought for dismissal of the petition. During the pendency of the petition, efforts made for their reconciliation failed, as respondent/husband had filed the divorce petition on the basis of adultery. No doubt, wife who is unable to maintain herself, needs to be awarded maintenance pendentelite for her survival, the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been enacted with a view to undue enrich the wives and to encourage litigation but have been introduced to protect the interests of the poor destitute, deserted spouses who are unable to maintain themselves. It is also well settled that there is no straight jacket formula that the spouse is entitled to a particular portion of the salary on account of maintenance but the court has to see the income of the parties, their status and their dependency. In the instant case, wife is Master in Mass Communication. The allegations are that she is working in Total TV Channel. Though no proof of income has come on record, it cannot be said that she is totally dependent upon her parents. At the same time the respondent is an officer in the Air Force and is drawing a monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- after certain deductions which he may be paying against the loans raised by him, his carry home salary is CR No. 4380 of 2010 4 recorded as Rs.12,000/- per month but that also cannot be taken as a bona fide on the part of the husband. Some mischief appears to have been made by him in order to project that he has meager income. However, at the same time, it cannot be ignored that he has to spend on himself, his brother and his parents. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that maintenance awarded by the trial court is neither adequate nor proportionate to the status of the wife, therefore, it would be appropriate if she is awarded at least Rs.10,000/- as maintenance and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. In view of the matter, the petition filed by the wife is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendentelite and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. As regards the revision petition filed by the husband, in this regard, it is observed that the maintenance awarded to the petitioner in view of the surrounding circumstances of the case, is not on the higher side. It is still to be proved whether the respondent is suffering from adultery but one thing has to be said that he being the husband is liable to maintain his wife during the pendency of the litigation. Therefore, no reasons for declining the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be made out. Consequently, the revision preferred by the husband has to be dismissed. Resultantly, the petition filed by the husband is dismissed, whereas wife's petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms and CR No. 4380 of 2010 5 she would be entitled to maintenance pendentelite from the date of filing of the application. (A.N.Jindal) 14.11.2011 Judge rp