Civil Revision No. 6216 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 6216 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 24.9.2010 Savitoj Singh ... Petitioner Versus Harneet Kaur ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner – Savitoj Singh, for setting aside the order dated 23.7.2010 passed against him by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which he was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent – Harneet Kaur. During that petition, she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. She came out with the plea that she was having no independent source of income to maintain herself and to bear the expenses of litigation and that she was not having any movable and immovable property. According to her, the petitioner was the managing Civil Revision No. 6216 of 2010 (O&M) -2- director of two women magazines namely; 'AKAS' and 'SUANI'. The claim of the respondent was contested by the petitioner who came up with the plea that the respondent was highly qualified and educated lady being M.Sc in Economics and was teaching in Khalsa College for women at Amritsar and had also opened an Academy of Economics and was earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He also submitted that he was doing marketing of one Punjabi magazine and was earning only Rs.5,000/- per month. After going through the records of the case and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the above said order was passed by the Additional District Judge. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is confining his prayer to the extent that the said maintenance be ordered to be paid from the date of the order itself and not from the date of the application, as has been held by the Additional District Judge. According to him it was on account of the conduct of the respondent herself that the disposal of that application was delayed. He has referred to the proceeding orders passed by the Additional District Judge and which have been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the proceeding orders makes it very much clear that the respondent is not to be blamed for delay in the decision of the application filed by her under Section 24 of the Act. At the first possible opportunity she came up with that application. Instead of deciding that application, first the Additional District Judge, insisted that she should file written statement, which is against the settled law. He should have first decided this application before asking the respondent to file her written statement. Even after that written statement was filed, the disposal of that Civil Revision No. 6216 of 2010 (O&M) -3- application was delayed on account of conduct of the petitioner as he moved an application under Section 151 of C.P.C for the rejection of the written statement and had been getting adjournments for advancing arguments on that application. Additional District Judge judiciously exercised the discretion while allowing the interim maintenance to the respondent from the date of the application itself. No illegality has been found in that order. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. September 24, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge