In a revision against an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to a respondent wife, the High Court held that the amount is not excessive and no material irregularity exists, dismissing the petition.
The petition was dismissed; the maintenance order of Rs. 2,000 per month stood affirmed.
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. 3095 of 2009 (O&M)
1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3095 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2009
Gurmeet Singh Pehalwan
......petitioner
Versus
Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.M.Tripathi, Advocate. for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
SABINA, J.
Respondent Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act') seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act. Vide the impugned order, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court.
2
Civil Revision No. 3095 of 2009 (O&M)
Admittedly, the petitioner is a National level wrestler. The petitioner is maintaining two children, whereas, the respondent is maintaining one child. The certificate Annexure P-5, placed on record to the effect that the respondent was earning Rs.5,500/-, per month is dated 30.4.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown his inability to produce on record a recent certificate qua the salary of the respondent. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on Annexure P-5, which has been issued in the year 2007. The respondent has taken a categoric stand that she was not earning anything. Vide the impugned order, Rs.2,000/- per month have been allowed as maintenance to the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the present case by the learned Additional District Judge, the said amount cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of high prices.
Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE
December 02, 2009 anita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order allowing the respondent Rs. 2,000 per month warrants interference in the current revision.
Whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurmeet Singh Pehalwan
Preeti @ Manpreet Kaur
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
