Dismissed

Gurpreet Singh v. Sunita Rani

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2011CR/1234/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 227, the High Court allowed the application subject to objections before dismissing it, holding there was no merit as the petitioner was capable of earning and the interim maintenance awarded was reasonable, while directing adjustment of amounts paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Rev. petition dismissed; adjustment of Rs.800/- per month paid under Section 125 Cr.P.C. allowed.

Gurpreet Singh Vs Sunita Rani — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Civil Revision No.1234 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Civil Revision No.1234 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: February 22, 2011

Gurpreet Singh

.....Petitioner

v.\

Sunita Rani

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

C.M.No.5046-CII of 2011

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just objections.

¶16

Civil Revision No.1234 of 2011

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 20.1.2011, Annexure P6, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed by respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') for maintenance pendente lite has been allowed during pendency of petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by petitioner and he was directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.

¶19

Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 27.1.2008. As per the case of respondent-wife, she was turned out of the house without any cause after treating her with cruelty and she is having no source of income to maintain herself, whereas petitioner belongs to agriculturist family and he

¶20

-2-

¶21

Civil Revision No.1234 of 2011(O&M)

¶22

is also engaged in business of selling milk.

¶23

Though petitioner has denied that he does not own any agricultural land, however, admitted facts are that his father owns agricultural land. He is living in a joint family with his father. He is the only son. Even if it is taken that father of petitioner owns only 4 acres of land, as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, however, he is having capacity to do agricultural work as well as can sell milk. He is an able bodied person. Hence, his plea has been rightly rejected by learned appellate Court that he is not doing any work and he is not having any income and that he is dependent upon his father. An able bodied person, after contracting marriage, cannot be permitted to take the plea that he is dependent upon his father and having no work to do.

¶24

In these days of high prices, ad interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- as granted by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Patiala, cannot be said to be on higher side. It would be very difficult for respondent-wife to make both ends meet with this meager sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite

¶25

There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.

¶26

However, it has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is also paying Rs.800/- per month as interim maintenance in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Hence, if any, amount has been received by respondent-wife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for the period for which interim maintenance has been granted by learned trial Court vide impugned order, the same shall be adjusted.

¶28

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶29

22.2.2011

¶30

meenu

Gurpreet Singh v. Sunita Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurpreet Singh v. Sunita Rani

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

Harpal Singh @ Pala Vs State of Punjab

Rinku Vs State of Haryana

Gandhi Teji @ Rahul Vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Kaur @ Suman @ Geeta & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Faqir Chand Vs State of Punjab