Petitioner challenged interim maintenance awarded to wife and child under Hindu Marriage Act via Article 227 revision. Bench held powers under Article 227 are limited and refused interference with lower court's well-reasoned order despite Petitioner's high income.
Petition dismissed; order of Additional District Judge, Karnal dated 10.3.2009 was upheld.
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.
Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009
Decided on : May 14, 2009
Kunal Rao ... Petitioner
VERSUS
Anamika and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
- A.N.JINDAL, J.
The provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India are sought to be invoked for quashing the order dated 10.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, vide which, in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein referred as `the Act'), the application filed by the respondent – wife Anamika under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance was allowed and she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.4000/- per month for the minor child, aged about one year.
The petitioner hails from a rich family running a Company in the name and style of `Rahul Power and Trans Company' and they are said to be distributors of Myco and Bosche products for the entire State of Haryana. The Company does not consists of strangers, but the petitioner, his parents and brother, having a turn over of more than Rs.47 lacs. The petitioner has tried to show that he is earning only about Rs.90,000/- per
Civil Revision No.2718 of 2009
[ 2 ]
annum, which appears to be a camouflage to put the Court in confusion.
It could not be denied that both the businesses i.e, 'Rahul Power and Trans Company' and the distributorship of Myco and Bosche products are owned by the family members of the petitioner. The Trial Court while keeping in view the income, status and the daily necessities of the respondent and the minor child, has granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.11,000/- per month for the respondent – wife and Rs.4000/- for the minor child. It also needs mention that the respondent – wife was just in her twenties when she was turned out of the house.
The petitioner – husband appears to have prepared a rent-note in order to project that he is living separately, but in the given circumstances, the petitioner, who is just 24 years of age, cannot be said to be living separately from his family, when the entire family business is joint.
Even otherwise, the Apex Court has time and again observed that the powers of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction are very limited and need not be lightly invoked, unless the impugned order suffers from any perversity or arbitrariness. Merely because a different view of the matter is possible, is not a ground to interfere with the same.
Under these circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the well-reasoned order dated 10.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal.
Consequently, this petition stands dismissed.
May 14, 2009 `gian'
( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's interim maintenance order under Article 227.
Whether the petitioner's claimed income proves the lower court's maintenance award was perverse.
Whether the relationship between family members affects the determination of separate living status.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kunal Rao
Anamika
A.N.JINDAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
