Vinay Narula v. Ranjna Narula & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 09.08.2017 Vinay Narula ..Petitioner

Versus

Ranjna Narula and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate, for the petitioner.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral) Respondent-Husband has filed the present revision petition against order dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, fixing the maintenance pendente lite payable to the wife and the minor son.

Mr. Vinay Narula-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1. During the pendency of the petition, filed under Section 13 of the Act, wife and two sons of the parties filed an application for grant of maintenance pendente lite. It was asserted by the wife that the husband is posted as office Superintendent in the Income Tax Department and drawing a salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.

Learned District Judge, after appreciating the facts available on the file, granted Rs.8000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.5000/-

-2per month to minor son Honey as maintenance pendente lite. Learned District Judge also ordered payment of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. This order has been challenged by the husband as noticed above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has submitted that the wife is working as a teacher in a private school and Court has not considered the aforesaid fact while assessing the compensation. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that she is also taking tuition. However, the Court has not considered this aforesaid fact also. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length and with his able assistance gone through the order passed by the learned District Judge. Learned District Judge while fixing the maintenance pendent lite has considered the submissions of the husband that Smt. Ranjana Narula is working as a teacher in a private school drawing salary of Rs.4726/-. The Court has further noticed that one of the son of the parties is studying in Engineering College. Learned Court has further noticed that the husband is posted as office Superintendent in the Income Tax Department. He has already completed 25 years of service and his salary is minimum Rs.50,000/- per month.

Learned District judge has fixed the maintenance pendente lite payable to the wife @ Rs. 8000 per month, whereas to the minor son Honey, it has been fixed as Rs.5000/- per month. In my opinion, the amount awarded is not excessive and is in consonance with the salary of the petitioner.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error in the order passed by the learned District

-3Judge, Jalandhar. Therefore, the revision is ordered to be dismissed. August 09, 2017 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No