CR No.1659 of 2008.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.1659 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.12.2009 **** Gurmit Kaur & Others . . . . Petitioners VS. Rupinder Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. D.K. Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.K. Virk, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur, whereby, the petitioner-wife has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month only. (2). The above-stated order has been passed on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, moved by the petitioner-wife in a divorce petition filed by the respondent- husband under Section 13 of the Act. The respondent- husband sought divorce on the ground that the petitioner- wife failed to comply with the decree for conjugal rights passed under Section 9 of the Act. CR No.1659 of 2008.doc - 2 - (3). It is not in dispute that out of the wedlock, two girls were born, who are still minor and in the custody of the mother – the petitioner. Though a sum of Rs.2000/- is said to have been awarded towards maintenance of the minor daughters in an application under Section 125 Cr.PC, the solitary question that arises for consideration is as to whether the amount of Rs.1000/- per month can be said to be sufficient for the petitioner’s sustenance and survival? (4). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto learned counsel for the parties have been heard. (5). There appears to be no dispute that the respondent- husband owns agricultural land measuring 10 acres besides one truck and also deals in the business of dairy farming. (6). On the other hand, the petitioner-wife is an unemployed woman who is required to look after and maintain two minor daughters as well. In my considered opinion, it is too difficult for the petitioner-wife to sustain and survive on a sum of Rs.3000/- per month (even if she is getting Rs.2000/- for maintenance of her two daughters), in this era of skyrocketing prices, especially, when she is required to meet the educational expenses of their two daughters besides her own needs and requirements. The amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Ferozepur, is disproportionately on the lower side which ought to have been determined keeping in view the basic necessities and the ground realities. CR No.1659 of 2008.doc - 3 - (7). The revision petition is, accordingly, allowed in part; the impugned order dated 16.02.2008 is modified to the extent that the petitioner-wife is held entitled to the interim maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 13.12.2007. The petitioner shall be entitled to arrears at the enhanced rate of interim maintenance from the date of application till the divorce petition was decided by the trial Court. The arrears shall be paid within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (8). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.11.2009 vishal shonkar