R.S.A. No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Parminder Singh @ Daljit Singh ......Appellant Versus Narinder Kaur .......Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. R.N. Moudgil, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for maintenance. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was married to defendant No.1 on 5.10.1986. After marriage parties resided together as husband and wife, however, no child was born to them. About ten years ago, defendant No.1 had left for a foreign country. Defendant No.1 had failed to maintain the plaintiff. Hence, suit was filed. Defendant in his written statement averred that the plaintiff had herself left the matrimonial home and hence she was not entitled for maintenance. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed R.S.A. No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) 2 by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2008, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/- per month from defendant No.1 and further a charge was created on the share of defendant No.1 in the land measuring 13 kanals situated in village Salamatpur. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 preferred appeals. Additional District Judge, Shahabjada Ajeet Singh Nagar (Mohali) vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant No.1 and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and enhanced the maintenance amount from ` 3,000/- to ` 8,000/- per month. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had erred in awarding maintenance to the plaintiff. In fact, plaintiff herself had left the matrimonial home. The amount of maintenance allowed by the Courts below was also on the higher side. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff is the wife of appellant-defendant No.1. R.S.A. No. 1098 of 2010 (O&M) 3 At present the appellant is residing in America. Appellant himself had not appeared in the witness box and Gurdarshan Singh had appeared on behalf of the appellant as his attorney. However, Gurdarshan Singh could not disclose exact income of the appellant. Since the appellant is residing in America, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly allowed maintenance to the tune of ` 8,000/- per month to the plaintiff. The said amount in the facts and circumstances cannot be said on the higher side. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 7, 2011 Anand