Dismissed

Bimla Rani v. Surinder Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2010CR/4623/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of an application for pendente lite maintenance. It held that since the wife is employed, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 24. Expenses for major children must be sought in separate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file appropriate proceedings for education and other expenses of major children.

Bimla Rani Vs Surinder Kumar — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.12.2010

Bimla Rani

....Petitioner

Versus

Surinder Kumar

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶16

Wife is assailing order dated 11.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application moved by the wife/petitioner herein under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking pendente lite maintenance from the husband was rejected.

¶17

Undisputedly, earlier both husband and wife were working as Judgment Writers in the Sessions Division, Ludhiana. Undisputedly, wife/petitioner got appointed as Income Tax Inspector in the Income Tax Department and is now working as Inspector Income Tax in the office of CIT, Ludhiana. Undisputedly, wife is getting Rs.12,635/- as monthly gross salary. Undisputedly, husband has taken voluntary retirement from the Sessions Division, Ludhiana, and now getting

¶18

-2-

¶19

Civil Revision No.4623 of 2009 (O&M)

¶20

monthly pension of Rs.4,308/- only.

¶21

Learned counsel for the wife/petitioner vehemently argued that husband is also having monthly rental income about Rs.3,000/-. He further argued that husband is also having GPF to the tune of Rs.6,27,569/-. Learned counsel for the wife/petitioner further contended that both son and daughter, although major, who are studying, are with the petitioner. He further contends that all the expenses of major children are being paid by the petitioner and she is receiving no contribution from the respondent/husband.

¶22

In view of the admitted fact that wife/petitioner is serving as Income Tax Inspector and getting monthly salary of Rs.12,635/-, I do not think, she is entitled for any pendente maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the opinion of this Court, expenses for the maintenance and education of the unemployed children can be sought and directed by the competent Court in separate appropriate proceedings. In the opinion of this Court Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should not be invoked for the purpose of education and other expenses of major children.

¶23

Present petition is dismissed with the liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for recovery of education and other expenses of major children in accordance with law.

¶24

(Alok Singh) Judge

¶25

December 01, 2010 R.S.

Bimla Rani v. Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Rani v. Surinder Kumar

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

Ramesh Kumar Vs Vimmi Nandwani

Krishan Lal and Anr. Vs Madan Lal etc.

Lakhwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs Dera Mai Sahib

Meena Devi Vs Suresh Kumar

Krishna Nand Chela Baba Maha Nand Vs Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Nath