High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/9174/2017disposed of

Anil Yadav v. Shilpi

2018-01-19Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

CR No.9174 of 2017 {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CR No.9174 of 2017 Date of decision:19.01.2018 Anil Yadav ... Petitioner Vs.

Shilpi ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) The petitioner-husband is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-5), whereby, ad interim maintenance to the tune of `7,000/- per month and `10,000/- as litigation expenses, has been granted by the Court below.

Mr. Vaneet Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the marriage, the petitioner had purchased the land measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas out of his own earnings in the name of respondent-wife, vide registered sale deed dated 09.05.2007 against sale consideration of `4,15,000/-, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent-wife does not have 'sufficient means' vis-a-vis income. The petitioner is a retired army officer and drawing a sum of `18,867/- as pension and has old parents to look after, thus, submitted that ad interim maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife is on the higher side.

Savita 2018.01.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CR No.9174 of 2017 {2} I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and appraised the paper book.

The ad interim maintenance and litigation expenses granted by the trial Court is just and reasonable after taking into consideration the pension of the petitioner.

Mr.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner expressed apprehension that due to ad interim maintenance granted to the respondentwife, she may not unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the divorce petition filed in the year 2017 as the matter is listed for petitioner-husband's evidence.

No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order, much less, the same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. While upholding the order under challenge the revision petition stands disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the divorce petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE January 19, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Savita 2018.01.24 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh