IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5137 of 2006 Date of Decision : September 29 , 2008 Harjeet Singh Gugnani ....Petitioner Versus Smt Meenu Gugnani .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Challenge in the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner-husband is to the order passed by District Judge, Amritsar whereby respondent-wife was awarded maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 10,000/-per month and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner-husband has also filed Civil Revision No. 4060 of 2007 against the order passed by District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the divorce petition filed by him was taken out of the file of the Court and consigned to record-room for the reason that he had failed to pay the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses. Both the revisions are being disposed of by one order. The parties were married on 25.12.1983 and three children were born from this wedlock. While pleading that the respondent had been Civil Revision No. 5137 of 2006 -2- torturing him with cruelty and also deserted him for the last 10 years, the petitioner filed a petition on 17.4.2006 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’) for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. Upon notice, the respondent put in appearance and filed an application dated 7.6.2006 under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance pendente lite for herself and for the daughter of the parties by pleading that she had no source of income, whereas the petitioner had vast resources, being owner of two houses, and also carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Piara Singh Sewa Singh and M/s Harjit Singh and Sons. The application under Section 24 of the Act was contested by the petitioner on the grounds that the respondent was running a beauty parlour and an income tax assessee, besides having bank accounts and fixed deposit receipts in different banks. It was also pleaded that Navneet Gugnani, daughter of the parties, was not a minor any more as she had completed her graduation in commerce. The respondent had occupied the house owned by him. One of the firms was owned by his father and the petitioner did not own any factory. After going through the pleadings, learned District Judge, vide impugned order accepted the application under Section 24 of the Act and granted a sum of a Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent as maintenance pendente lite, besides, a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. As neither the maintenance amount nor litigation expenses was paid by the petitioner, learned District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated October 6, 2006 proceeded to take petition under Section 13 of the Act out of the file of its Court and consigned the same to the record-room. Civil Revision No. 5137 of 2006 -3- Though, there is no denial of the fact that the respondent-wife had been running a beauty parlour under the name and style of Gugnani Beauty Parlour and she had submitted her income tax returns for the assessment years 1986-87, 1990-91 and 1991-92, yet there is no material available, from which it could be concluded that the respondent was carrying on the occupation of beauty parlour at the time when she filed the application under Section 24 of the Act. In the student’s personal card of Avish Gugnani, one of the three children of the parties, which card had been signed by the petitioner, he described occupation of his wife as housewife. The card in question was submitted on 10.3.2001. Coming to the business of the petitioner, though he may not be directly associated with M/s Piara Singh Sewa Singh, yet the other firm under the name and style of M/s Harjeet Singh and sons belongs to him and engaged in the business of wholesale of jute goods. In her affidavit, the respondent had averred that the petitioner had got shares of different companies and is having movable and immovable properties and, therefore, earning not less than Rs. 2,00,000/- per month. However, the petitioner did not opt to file any affidavit before the learned lower court. The respondent had pleaded and also placed on record the material to show that her daughter had obtained admission in M.B.A for which she was required to pay an amount of Rs. 24,000/- every six months as tuition fee. Besides this, respondent would be required to incur more expenses for her education. Civil Revision No. 5137 of 2006 -4- Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses awarded to the respondent were excessive or on the higher side. Coming to the issue concerning the divorce petition being consigned to record-room on account of non-payment of the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses, a direction can be issued to the learned trial Court that in the event of the petitioner paying the arrears of maintenance and the litigation expenses by 1.12.2008, it shall revive the divorce petition. Resultantly, Civil Revision No. 5137 of 2006 is dismissed, while Civil Revision No. 4060 of 2007 is disposed to by directing to the trial Court that in the event of the petitioner-husband paying arrears of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses on or before 1.12.2008, it shall revive the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties, along with their respective counsel, shall appear before the learned Court below on 1.12.2008. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 29, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO