Dismissed

Pushpinder Singh v. Maninder Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2010CR/5927/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision under Article 227, this Court dismissed a challenge to the trial court's order denying interim maintenance. The High Court held there was no merit in the contention that the trial court erred in dismissing the application due to lack of documentary evidence regarding the parties' financial status and income sources.

What did the court decide?

No interim maintenance was granted; the appeal against the dismissal of the maintenance application was rejected.

Pushpinder Singh Vs Maninder Kaur — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C . R. No. 5927 of 2010

¶2

- 1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

C . R. No. 5927 of 2010 Date of Decision : 15.09.2010

¶6

Pushpinder Singh

¶7

.......... Petitioner

Versus

Maninder Kaur

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

¶12

Present : Ms. Reena Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

¶14

VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 5.6.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala, vide which application moved by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands declined.

¶16

The respondent / wife moved a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of interim maintenance.

¶17

The petitioner thought that offence was the best form of defence, therefore, instead of contesting the application moved by the respondent / wife, the petitioner / husband chose to file application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendente lite @ ` 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand

¶18

C . R. No. 5927 of 2010 - 2-

¶19

¶20

only) per month along with litigation expenses, on the ground, that the wife was running a sweet shop under the name and style of M/s Lovely Sweets shop at Begowal, District Kapurthala and earning 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month. It is also the case of the petitioner, that beside earning 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) per month respondent / wife being qualified teacher is earning ` 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) per month by way of tuition.

¶21

The petitioner claimed maintenance and litigation expenses by pleading, that he met with an accident, therefore, was unable to move about, and had no independent source of income, therefore, was entitled to maintenance pendente lite.

¶22

The application was contested by denying the averments made in the application. The accident of the petitioner was said to have taken place long back, and that he was physically fit. She also pleaded, that the petitioner / husband, is a rich man, he owns immovable property worth crores. Further the petitioner / husband had sold number of properties worth crores of rupees, and he was said to own other properties,in addition to the sold one.

¶23

The learned trial Court held, that there was no evidence of income of the respondent, as Lovely Sweet shop was being run by the father of the respondent, not by the wife, as alleged by the petitioner in application moved under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶24

The learned trial Court also held that no positive evidence was on record to prove the income of the wife.

¶25

The learned trial Court further held, that no prima facie

¶26

C . R. No. 5927 of 2010 - 3-

¶27

¶28

evidence produced, in proof of the allegations made in the application under Section 24.

¶29

Thus on the pleadings and circumstances of the case, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was ordered to be dismissed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the learned trial Court failed to take note of the income of the respondent / wife, and also that the petitioner had met with an accident, and was not capable to earning anything. No evidence was led by the respondent with regard to the income earned by the petitioner by way of sale deed etc.

¶31

On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Matrimonial Court was right in holding, that the petitioner husband had immovable and moveable property, and specific details of property sold were given in reply filed. Furthermore the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to income of the respondent were totally vague and not supported by any documentary evidence. The finding of the learned Matrimonial Court is based on correct appreciation of pleading and material on record.

¶32

No ground therefore, is made out to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶33

No merit.

¶34

Dismissed.

¶35

15.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE

Pushpinder Singh v. Maninder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpinder Singh v. Maninder 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

Inder Singh Vs Bahadur Singh

Gurlal Singh Vs Hardyal Gir & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs Shaffi and Ors.

Mengal Singh and Another Vs M/S Kundan Lal and Another

Jasbir Kaur Aujla Vs Kanwar Opinder Singh Jaswal and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Goyal Vs Jai Kumar Goyal & Ors.