Anal Bhatia v. Sumedha Bhatia

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CR-2099-2021 (O&M) CM-9305-CII-2021 Date of Decision: 24.09.2021 ANAL BHATIA

...Petitioner

Versus

SUMEDHA BHATIA

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Present :

Mr. Krishan M. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) CM-9305-CII-2021 Application is allowed as prayed for and documents at Annexures P1 to P6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case Revision petition herein is directed against the order dated 09.08.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula directing the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m to respondent-wife pendent-lite w.e.f. 01.10.2020 till the final decision of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner-husband. 2.

The aforesaid amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m is in addition to Rs.7,000/- already awarded towards maintenance of minor daughter born out of the wedlock of the parties. The daughter is stated to be 08-year old and is currently studying in Bhavan Vidyalaya, Sector 15, Panchkula. 3.

On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the school fee being paid currently qua the education of minor child is about Rs.5,000/- p.m.

GURPREET KAUR 2021.09.24 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

4.

Admittedly, the impugned order awarding the additional Rs.2,000/- p.m. on that short ground alone, requires no interference. Apart from the school fee, it is but natural that the money is required for upbringing the child towards taking care of other daily needs including books, sports activities, extra co-curricular activities, clothing, transportation as well as regular visits to pediatrician from time to time, which may be needed for medical advise/consultation of a growing child. It is beyond the dignity of a person, mother herein, to keep running for the re-imbursement of such expenditure from time to time and therefore, being a parental duty, it is expected of the father to discharge his financial obligation towards the minor daughter, without seeking any account thereof. 5.

On a court query, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an MBA working in private sector. This Court is therefore, unable to accept that a person of such an educational background cannot afford the expenses of school fee and parental obligations for his daughter. As regards his other responsibilities as a son towards his parents, pleaded as a reason of his disability to pay for his daughter, the same is no ground to be exempted from his parental duties.

6.

Dismissed.

September 24, 2021 (ARUN MONGA) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2021.09.24 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document