Dismissed

Kuljit Singh v. Sarbjit Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Oct 2009CR/6029/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order awarding Rs.4,000 interim maintenance to the respondent wife. The bench held that the appellant failed to specifically deny ownership of the stated businesses and the award was not excessive, finding no grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

Application for revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed.

Kuljit Singh Vs Sarbjit Kaur — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.R.No.6029 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.6029 of 2009. Decided on: October 21, 2009.

Kuljit Singh

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

Sarabjit Kaur

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶11

PRESENT Mr.Sukhmir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioner-husband is aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2009, allowing the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, granting a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶14

On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is working as an employee for a Tent House, as such, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance is excessive and warrants interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

. . . 1

¶16

C.R.No.6029 of 2009

¶17

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the impugned order and reply of the petitioner filed before the trial Court in an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The respondent wife has specifically pleaded in her application that the petitioner is an able bodied person and earns a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month from two Tent Houses being run under the name and style Tung Tent House, Amloh Road, Khanna, and Mehak Tent House at village Salana Jiwan Singh Wala. The petitioner in his reply, the copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-3, has vaguely denied the said plea stating that the allegations are false and wrong. He has not even specifically mentioned in the reply that he is not the owner and only a worker in the said Tent Houses.

¶18

In view of the above circumstances, it cannot be pleaded that the petitioner is an employee and not owner of Tent Houses mentioned in the application. Even otherwise, a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as interim maintenance awarded to the respondent does not appear to be excessive.

¶19

No ground is made out for interference.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶22

October 21, 2009. rka

¶23

. . . 2

Kuljit Singh v. Sarbjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuljit Singh v. Sarbjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Lata Vs Sunita Devi & Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh and Ors.

Garg Rice Industries, Matlauda Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp. and Anr.

Inder Giyan Vs Shyam Sunder and Anr.

Gurnam Singh Vs Bahadur Singh and Ors.

Parkash Singh Vs Rajni Rani & Ors.