C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.9.2011 Sodagar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Pal Kaur ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/ modification of the order dated 28.7.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide which it had awarded Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance pendent lite, Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses and Rs.300/- per visit on her making personal presence under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (in short “the Act”). 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for a decree of divorce on various grounds. In the said divorce petition, the respondent moved an application dated 29.3.2010 under Section 24 of the Act pleading that she is residing at village C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 -2- Malkana, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda at the mercy of her maternal uncle. She further pleaded that the petitioner was owner of 1/2 share of 757/1510 out of total land measuring 75 kanals 10 marlas and also owner of 68/229 share of total land measuring 45 kanals 16 marlas and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The said application was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply. It was pleaded that he is suffering from urinary problem and had spent huge amount on his medical treatment after taking loan from various persons. It was further pleaded that he had to support his aged parents. The trial court vide order dated 28.7.2010 allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act and awarded a sum of Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application, i.e. 29.3.2010, Rs.300/- per visit and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a draft No. 921452 dated 28.9.2011 amounting to Rs.20,000/- towards the maintenance awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent has received the same in Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the normal rule of award of maintenance is 1/3rd of the income and following the said principles and even if taking the income of the husband- petitioner to be Rs.10,000/- per mensem, the award of maintenance pendente lite of Rs.4000/- per month was excessive. Supporting the order passed by the trial court, the aforesaid submission was C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 -3- controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Ordinarily, the normal rule is that 1/3rd income of the spouse is taken to be sufficient and reasonable yardstick for grant of maintenance pendente lite. However, the same is not statutorily provided under the Act and depends upon facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The trial court in the present case had concluded that the petitioner-husband was owning 40 kanals of land as per fard jamabandi and that the wife was wholly dependent upon her maternal uncle. It was also recorded that the petitioner-husband would be earning about Rs.10,000/- per month and on that basis had awarded maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act at Rs.4000/- per month besides Rs.300/- per visit on her making personal appearance and also Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. The observations of the trial court read thus:- “5. The marriage of the parties to the petition, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies is admitted. The parties to the petition resided together in the house of the petitioner as husband and wife. At present the parties to the petition are not residing together. The respondent is residing at the house of her maternal uncle. She has come to contest this petition from the house of her maternal uncle at village Malkana and she has come to contest this petition from there. There is noting on the file which can prove that she has any source of income. The C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 -4- petitioner being the husband is liable to maintain her. The wife has placed on record copy of farad jamabandi in which the petitioner has been shown owner in possession of about 40 kanals of land. The husband/petitioner has claimed himself to prove this fact. He has not filed any affidavit to controvert the allegations of the wife. Therefore, the averments of the application filed by the wife cannot be disbelieved and this being so I have no hesitation to hold that the respondent-wife is unable to maintain herself and that the petitioner/husband has neglected her. 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the application of the respondent Pal Kaur succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. Keeping in view the social status of the parties to the petition, high prices of the domestic articles and earning capacity of the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Four thousand) per month is appropriate amount which can be awarded to the respondent as maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Besides this amount the respondent is also entitled for a sum of Rs.3300/- as litigation charges. She is further entitled to Rs.300/- per visit on her making personal presence. It is ordered accordingly.” 8. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, the award of C.R. No. 5825 of 2010 -5- maintenance at Rs.4000/- per month, besides litigation expenses of Rs.3300/- and Rs.300/- for each visit of hearing cannot be said to be excessive. There is no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the conclusion of the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 29, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE