High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/8090/2017disposed of

Yadvinder Singh Sandhu v. Dalip Kaur

2018-02-06Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

C.R. No.8090 of 2017 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8090 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.06.02.2018 Yadvinder Singh Sandhu ......Petitioner Vs Dalip Kaur ........Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.- AMIT RAWAL J.(ORAL) C.M. No.2307-CII of 2018 Application is allowed.

Annexure P-7 (colly) is taken on record.

C.R. No.8090 of 2017 The revision petition is directed against the impugned order whereby in a petition preferred under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 at the instance of the respondent-mother of the petitioner claiming maintenance to the tune of `20,000/- per month in view of her old age and fragile health, an interim maintenance of `10,000/- has been awarded.

Mr. Rangi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that there are certain litigations pending at the instance of the daughter as she has left her matrimonial home and residing with his mother. His client has no qualm of adhering to the order but the fact of the matter is that amount of maintenance would not be utilized by the mother but would be squandered away by the daughter. The apprehension in this PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.02.07 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document regard is writ large.

C.R. No.8090 of 2017 (O&M) -2I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that it is pious duty of a son to maintain the old ailing parents i.e. mother in the instant case. Once the petitioner has given an undertaking that there is no difficulty in paying the ad interim maintenance of `10,000/-, the apprehension expressed in my view can be redressed by modifying the order under challenge to the extent that the amount of `10,000/- will be deposited by the petitioner regularly in the account of the mother i.e. respondent-Dalip Kaur. With the aforementioned observations, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed by the trial Court. The same is upheld and the revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 06, 2018 Pankaj* Whether reasoned/speaking Yes Whether reportable No PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.02.07 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document