CR No. 5771 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5771 of 2010 Date of Decision : 09.09.2010 Parminder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Mandeep Kaur Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sudhir Mittal, advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 5.8.2010, passed by the learned Matrimonial Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner / husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. On notice, the respondent / wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite, on the plea, that the petitioner is employed as Hav / CR No. 5771 of 2010 -2- ***** Clk (GD) Group 'A' in Military Service, and his income is more than ` 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) per month, besides other facilities. Though, the averments were also made about the income of the father of the petitioner, but the same are totally irrelevant, and can not be taken into consideration for deciding application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was the case of the respondent / wife, that she has no independent source of income, therefore, prayed that maintenance @ ` 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) per month and ` 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand only)as litigation expenses be granted. The application was contested by the petitioner / husband, on the ground, that the respondent was estopped by her own conduct for claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the reason, that she had separated from the petitioner of her own, and furthermore under the settlement, she was paid an amount of ` 1,75,000/-(Rupees one lac and seventy five thousand only) as maintenance, present, past and future. She was, therefore, not entitled to any maintenance. The learned Matrimonial Court, keeping in view the fact, that the factum of marriage was admitted, and also that the respondent / wife had no independent source of income, and in view of the fact, that the petitioner had failed to give any proof of income, assessed the income of the petitioner to be ` 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only) per month, and granted maintenance @ ` CR No. 5771 of 2010 -3- ***** 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only). Mr. Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, challenged the impugned order, by contending, that the impugned order can not be sustained, as the respondent / wife could not be said to be having no means of income, as pleaded, because a sum of ` 1,75,000/- (Rupees one lac and seventy five thousand only) was paid towards past, present and future maintenance, therefore, she had means to maintain herself. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to prove the payment of ` 1,75,000/-(Rupees one lac and seventy five thousand only) towards full and final payment of maintenance i.e. past, present and future. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it was not disputed that the respondent / wife has no means of income, and it is yet to be established as to under what circumstances the amount was settled, i.e. whether it covered maintenance pendente lite, the Court was bound to decide the application and grant maintenance pendente lite along with litigation expenses. On the basis of guess work a sum of ` 18,000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand only) as income of the petitioner can not be said to be bad, as in this Court again, though the petitioner is Government employee, has chosen not to file any proof of income. CR No. 5771 of 2010 -4- ***** On failure of the party in disclosing the income by authentic proof, the Court has to assess the income by guess work to grant ad-interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the income of the petitioner being ` 18,000/- (Rupees eighteen thousand only)per month, the amount of ` 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month, as maintenance can not be said to be excessive or arbitrary, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 09.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE