Amarjeet Kumar v. Ritu Rani
CR-5986-2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CR-5986-2014 (O&M).
Decided on: March 9, 2015.
Amarjeet Kaur ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ritu Rani ..... Respondent(s) * * *
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.P.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Atul Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2014, passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in a divorce petition filed by him.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month fixed as maintenance pendente lite is excessive and is not payable to the respondent-wife. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the petitioner is admittedly working as a Security Guard. He is an able bodied person. He has filed a divorce petition to get rid of his wife by levelling allegations of adultery. The order awarding maintenance pendente lite does not appear to be excessive in view of the price index.
Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2015.03.13 12:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-5986-2014 (O&M) the respondent-wife has filed proceedings to seek custody of daughters claiming that she would be a better guardian of the girls. It is submitted that said plea is indicative of the fact that she is having sufficient means to maintain herself.
I do not find any force in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A mother can always take up the plea that she would be better guardian of the minor girls while pressing a petition for custody. The said plea will not in any manner, prejudice the rights of the parties.
No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order awarding maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.6,000/- per month.
The petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the proceedings. (M.M.S. BEDI) March 9, 2015.
JUDGE rka