Partly allowed

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli v. Paramjit Singh Kohli

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CR/1365/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The High Court enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs.5,000 to Rs.12,500 per month based on the respondent's increased pension.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs.12,500 per month w.e.f. date of filing of trial application, in addition to Rs.5,000 litigation expenses.

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli Vs Paramjit… — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.1365 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CIVIL REVISION NO.1365 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 08, 2012

¶5

Mrs. Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Colonel (Retd.) Paramjit Singh Kohli

¶9

.... Respondent

¶10

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶11

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. B. S. Guliani, Advocate for respondent.

¶14

¶15

L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against order dated 17.11.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh thereby granting interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the date of filing of application, in addition to Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner by way of instant revision petition seeks enhancement of the interim maintenance.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

¶18

file.

¶19

Trial Court allowed interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month keeping in view the net pension of the respondent which was Rs.14,914/- per month at that time. However, now admittedly, in view of revised pay scales,

¶20

CR No.1365 of 2011

¶21

-2-

¶22

pension of the respondent has increased retrospectively. According to counsel for the petitioner, it increased to Rs.38,732/- per month and presently it is Rs.41,000/- per month approximately. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contended that pension of the respondent has been enhanced to Rs.35,000/- per month. It was also pointed out by counsel for respondent that respondent is financing the studies of son of the parties in United States of America. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent also received huge amount of retiral benefits. Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that petitioner is residing in the house which was purchased by respondent and is owned by him.

¶23

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the interim maintenance awarded to the petitioner is enhanced to Rs.12,500/- per month w.e.f. the date of filing of the application in the trial Court, in addition to the litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the trial Court. It is ordered accordingly.

¶24

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

¶26

08.02.2012 'raj'

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli v. Paramjit Singh Kohli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli v. Paramjit Singh Kohli

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

Hoshiar Singh Vs Tehsildar (Sales) and Ors.

Sadhu Singh and Others Vs Bhupinder Singh and Another

M/S Snow White Dry Cleaners and Others Vs Neena Jauhar and Others

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Bar Association, Ludhiana and Another

Harjit Singh Deol Vs Kaur Singh Grewal and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs Rajbior Singh and Ors.