The High Court dismissed the revision petition challenging a maintenance order. The Court held that the awarded amount was not excessive considering the petitioner's agricultural land income potential and the rising cost of living.
The revision petition was dismissed in limine with no direction for interference with the impugned order.
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.
C.R. No.5143 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.5143 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010
Karam Singh
.……Petitioner
Versus
Anita Rani
……Respondent
Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
Karam Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against his wife Anita Ranirespondent, challenging order dated 27.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri thereby allowing application moved by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) and directing the petitionerhusband to pay to the respondent-wife Rs.3500/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of application and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
Respondent-wife alleged in her application under Section 24 of the Act that the petitioner-husband is having 10 acres land and is also running dairy farm and working as financier and property advisor and his income is more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The respondent-wife has no source of income to maintain herself and two minor children (born out of the wedlock) admittedly residing with the respondent-wife. Accordingly, the respondent-wife claimed
-2-
C.R. No.5143 of 2010
Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite beside litigation expenses. The petitioner-husband inter alia pleaded that he is having 6 ½ acres land only and his income is Rs.50,000/- per annum. He denied that he is running dairy farm or is working as financier. He also pleaded that respondent-wife is earning a lot by providing tuition and by serving in a private school. The husband also alleged that he has to maintain his three years old daughter, who is residing with him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that total income of the petitioner is Rs.50,000/- per annum only and, therefore, the maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month awarded by the trial Court is excessive. The contention cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's 6 ½ acres agricultural land is near Sadora town in Distt. Yamuna Nagar. Even if such agricultural land is leased out, it would fetch minimum of Rs.20,000/- per acre per annum, giving income of Rs.1,30,000/- per annum and in that event, the petitioner would also be at liberty to have some more income by doing some other work. On the contrary, if the petitioner himself cultivates the land which he can and should do and also must be doing, he can definitely earn much more than the income which he may have, by leasing out the land. In these circumstances, maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month for wife and the two minor children residing with her cannot be said to be excessive by any standards, particularly in view of the sky rocketing prices of the daily
-3-
C.R. No.5143 of 2010
necessities of life. The said amount cannot be said to be excessive even keeping in view the fact that the petitioner-husband has also to maintain a three years old daughter residing with him.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed
in limine.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
17.08.2010 A. Kaundal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial court is excessive given the petitioner's income and assets.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner has sufficient income to bear the maintenance awarded to the respondent and children.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Karam Singh
Anita Rani
L. N. Mitter
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
