Chitra v. Narinder Kumar

CR No.7905 of 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7905 of 2014 Date of decision: 20.08.2015 Mrs. Chitra ... Petitioner Vs.

Col. Narinder Kumar ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?

2.

To be referred to reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Zorawar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 6.10.2014, whereby, the second application for enhancement of the maintenance pendent-lite has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

Mr. Zorawar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that originally, the trial Court vide order dated 11.04.2013 had granted maintenance pendent-lite @ ` 10,000/- per month to the petitioner. However, owing to the change of the circumstances, another application for enhancement of the maintenance pendent-lite, has been filed which has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandahar, vide order dated 06.10.2014. It has been averred that the Court has not taken SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.08.27 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.7905 of 2014 into consideration the fact that earlier the petitioner was living with the respondent and thereafter, they have shifted to the native village of her husband, where, he has his ancestral house and, thus, both the spouses are living in the same house, i.e, petitioner on the first floor and respondent on the ground floor, therefore, she needs more money in order to sustain herself.

Mr. Abhinav Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the second application for enhancement of maintenance pendent-lite, was moved within a short span of time, has rightly been dismissed, vide order dated 6.10.2014,, as the first application was allowed only on 11.04.2013. Thus, the impugned order is fair, legal and justified. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

It is a matter of record that the petitioner has though shifted but residing in the ancestral house of the respondenthusband. Though, there is no change of circumstances and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, much less, perversity and the same cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction .

Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE August 20, 2015 savita SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.08.27 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh