Daljit Singh v. Navpreet Kaur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 22.1.2016 Daljit Singh ......Petitioner(s)

Versus

Navpreet Kaur ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH * * *

Present:

Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Darshan Singh, J.

1.

The present civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of ` 3000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent and to pay ` 5000/- towards litigation expenses. 2.

Petitioner-Daljit Singh has filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for dissolution of the marriage against respondent-wife Navpreet Kaur. During the pendency of that petition, the respondent-wife moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses on the ground, inter alia, that she is a household lady living at the mercy of her family members. She has no source of income. She also not own any moveable or immovable property. Her minor daughter is studying in Amrit Indo-

Canadian Academy, Laddian Road, Ludhiana. She has to spent the money for her school fee, traveling expenses, books, stationery and medical expenses. She pleaded that the petitioner-husband is working as Pharmacist and is earning ` 10,000/- per month. He also owns moveable and immovable property in his name. The respondent has claimed the maintenance at the rate of ` 12,000/- per month for herself and ` 8000/- per month for her minor daughter besides ` 22,000/- towards litigation expenses. 3.

The said application was contested by the petitioner on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. The conduct of the wife had been inflicting utmost cruelty on the respondent-husband. The adulterous and cruel conduct had shattered the sanctity of the marriage. It is further pleaded that she knew stitching of the clothes and had been working in various boutiques and was earning handsomely. The petitioner-husband also disputed that the minor daughter was studying in Amrit Indo-Canadian Academy, Laddian Road, Ludhiana. He further pleaded that he is earning only ` 9,000/- per month and apart from his salary, he does not have any other source of income. With these pleas, the petitioner pleaded for dismissal of the application.

4.

The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 07.10.2015 allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife and awarded the ad interim maintenance @ ` 3,000/- per month for the respondent-wife and her minor daughter from the date of the

application. ` 5000/- were awarded on account of the litigation expenses.

5.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed.

6.

I have heard Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the paper book. 7.

Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-wife is living in adultery which is evident from the copy of the Daily Diary Report (Annexure P-1) which has been lodged by her own father. In the DDR, it has been categorically mentioned that the respondent-wife was having an affair with one boy and had left the parental house along with her daughter. Thus, he contended that as the respondent-wife is living in adultery, so, she is not entitled for any maintenance. He further contended that the maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Court is on the higher side as the petitioner is working as Pharmacist with DMC & H, Ludhiana, a private hospital and is getting a meagre salary. 8.

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions. 9.

The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-wife is living in adultery is a question of fact which can only be adjudicated upon on appreciation of evidence to be adduced by the parties. To give any such finding at this stage simply on the basis of the Daily Diary Report No.17 dated 01.12.2013 will be premature. Thus, it cannot be a ground to decline the relief of ad interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

10.

There is no material on file to show that the respondentwife has any independent source of income for her support as well as the support of her minor daughter. It is not disputed that the minor daughter is residing with the respondent. This fact is not disputed that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. As she is not having any source of income, so, certainly she is not capable to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. 11.

On the other hand, this fact is not disputed that petitionerDaljit Singh is serving as a Pharmacist in DMC & H, Ludhiana. Even in the reply to the application filed by the petitioner, he has admitted that he is getting ` 9,000/- per month as salary. The learned Trial Court has awarded the ad interim maintenance only @ ` 3000/- per month for the support of the respondent and her minor daughter which cannot be stated to be on higher side as this amount is in fact the minimum amount to meet out the basic needs of the life. 12.

Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order calling for any interference by this Court while exercising the extra ordinary supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13.

Thus, keeping in view my aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. January 22, 2016 (DARSHAN SINGH) ps JUDGE