C.R. No.7242 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7242 of 2009 Date of decision:08.12.2009 Brij Mohan Yadav …Petitioner Versus Ritu Yadav and another …Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Brij Mohan Yadav has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.08.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala thereby disposing of application moved by respondent No.1 Ritu Yadav under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to respondent No.1. Petitioner has filed divorce petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the Act alleging that respondent No.1, who is wife of the petitioner is living in adultery with respondent No.2. During the pendency of the divorce petition, respondent No.1 filed application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite for herself as well as for the minor son born out of the wed-lock, residing with respondent No.1 admittedly. Respondent No.1 alleged in the application that she has no source of income whereas the petitioner herein runs business and earns Rs.40,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 claimed maintenance pendente lite of Rs.20,000/- per month, C.R. No.7242 of 2009 -2- besides Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner denied his income of Rs.40,000/- per month as alleged by respondent No.1. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No.1 is not entitled to interim maintenance because she is living in adultery with respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since respondent No.1 is leading adulterous life, she is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite. The contention cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, there is nothing on record to prima facie substantiate the contention that respondent No.1 is leading adulterous life with respondent No.2. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain documents placed on record. However, the said documents (Annexures P-7 to P-9) are allegations by the petitioner himself. Annexure P-6 is said to have been written by respondent No.1 admitting her sexual relationship with a boy for 2-3 days . However, after this writing dated 19.09.2008, the petitioner continued to live with respondent No.1 till 07.10.2008. Moreover this writing is yet to be proved. Secondly, Section 24 of the Act does not provide that interim maintenance under the said provision can be denied to the erring spouse. It simply provides that either spouse having no independent income sufficient for her or his support and necessary expenses of the litigation may be provided with maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to be paid by the other spouse. Section 24 of the Act no where lays down that if the wife is living in adultery, she is not C.R. No.7242 of 2009 -3- entitled to maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under this provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) which disentitles a wife to receive maintenance or interim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C if she is living in adultery or if without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent. However, there is no such corresponding prohibition in Section 24 of the Act. The Parliament in its wisdom has not provided for any such prohibition in Section 24 of the Act and, therefore, prohibition contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C cannot be imported in Section 24 of the Act. The Court cannot add to the plain language of Section 24 of the Act. Drawing parallel from Section 125(4) Cr.P.C for adjudicating upon application under Section 24 of the Act would be doing violence to the language of Section 24 of the Act. The Court cannot do so. Section 24 of the Act provides for maintenance pendente lite only, besides litigation expenses whereas Section 125 Cr.P.C provides interim maintenance as well as permanent maintenance. It is thus apparent that Section 24 of the Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C operate in completely different fields. Under Section 24 of the Act, even husband can claim maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses from the wife if he satisfies the requirements of the said provision whereas under Section 125 Cr.P.C, husband cannot seek maintenance from the wife. In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge so as to warrant C.R. No.7242 of 2009 -4- interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. However, it is expressly made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the divorce petition. 08.12.2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A.Kaundal JUDGE