Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2011 Smt.Premila .....Petitioner v. Sh.Dharam Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.23794-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.8.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, rejecting application filed by petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') in proceedings under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent-husband against present petitioner-wife. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that during pendency of the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by respondent-husband, petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 24 of Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011(O&M) -2- the Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The application was contested by respondent-husband on the plea that petitioner-wife has already been granted maintenance by the concerned Court in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the `Cr.P.C.') and hence, it was held that petitioner-wife is not entitled to claim maintenance in the present proceedings. However, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was decided ex parte vide Annexure P2, and at that time petitioner could not adduce evidence regarding income of respondent-husband. It is further contended that only `2,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to petitioner-wife, whereas now petitioner-wife has been able to procure the requisite certificate regarding salary of respondent-husband, Annexure P5, which shows that his total salary is `37,841/- and carry home salary is `24,734/-. Hence, it is contended that maintenance @ `2,000/- per month is too meager. It is further contended that moreover law is well settled that the maintenance can be awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 24 of the Act, which are independent provisions and, however, from the maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance already awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C can be adjusted. He has also placed reliance upon Amrik Singh v. Nirmal Kumari, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 535. Hence, in view of these facts, there is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in not deciding the application for ad interim maintenance filed under Section 24 of the Act by petitioner-wife and rather dismissing the same simply on the ground that she was already awarded maintenance @ Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011(O&M) -3- `2,000/- per month in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad is directed to decide the application filed by petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the litigation on merit, after hearing both the parties. However, it is made clear that maintenance received by petitioner-wife for the period claimed in this petition in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be adjusted. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by Civil Revision No.5980 of 2011(O&M) -4- the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order. 28.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge