Proceeding to modify a maintenance order where the trial court failed to consider that the petitioner was residing with the minor daughter along with the respondent's income.
Revision allowed and interim maintenance modified to Rs.1250/- per month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CR No.1481 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CR No.1481 of 2009
Date of Decision: 22.10.2009
Dilbagh Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Simarjit Kaur ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Mr.S.P.Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner challenges an order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, granting interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- p.m.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the court below has held that the petitioner is a skilled labourer and his income has been assessed as Rs.4000/- p.m., the award of interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/p.m. is highly excessive. The petitioner has to look after the minor daughter of the parties. It is submitted that as the amount of interim maintenance is highly excessive, the order dated 23.1.2009 be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that in addition to the income of Rs.4000/- p.m., the petitioner derives income from agricultural land and, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,000/- p.m. is not excessive.
CR No.1481 of 2009
2
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 23.1.2009.
It is not denied that the minor daughter of the parties is residing with the petitioner. The trial court has assessed the petitioner's income as Rs.4000/- p.m. However, while granting interim maintenance @ Rs.2000/p.m., the trial court lost sight of the fact that the minor daughter of the parties is residing with the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the interim maintenance fixed by this court vide order dated 18.3.2009 is affirmed.
As a consequence, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 23.1.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance @ Rs.1250/- p.m. to the respondent.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
22.10.2009 GS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's interim maintenance assessment considering the petitioner's income and living expenses with minor daughter was appropriate.
What modification to the interim maintenance order is required in the interest of justice.
Dilbagh Singh
Simarjit Kaur
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
