Revision disposed of a petition challenging an interim maintenance order. The High Court observed that the trial court had adjusted paid amounts correctly and reduced the payable sum, dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
The revision petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the trial court was up.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3065 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: May 26, 2009
Subhashs Chand
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Santosh
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N. Jindal, J
On examination of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial court after adjusting the amount of maintenance which has been paid to the respondent, awarded further sum of Rs.5000/- per month payable to the respondent. Had the court ordered Rs.18000/- then certainly the petitioner had to pay only Rs.5000/- more and it is just a way of making observations and nothing more. It cannot be said in any manner that adjustment of Rs.13,000/- has not been made in the order of interim maintenance passed by the learned District Judge, Karnal.
The observations made by the Apex Court in case Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 536 , are not in any way disputed. While keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner has an amount of Rs.2.00 crores which he had earned out of the sale proceeds and also the valuable land he possesses, the court in its own words had adjusted the amount and awarded Rs.5000/- more to the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Dismissed.
(A.N. Jindal) Judge
May 26, 2009 deepak
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order reflected proper adjustment of maintenance arrears.
Whether the petitioner's claim for appeal was valid given the amounts involved.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha ChaudharyReferred¶13
Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 536 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subhashs Chand
Smt. Santosh
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
