This revision petition challenges an order granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondent-wife. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding the petitioner not indigent given his assets, and rejected the claim that the award was excessive.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision 3564 of 2012 Date of Decision : July 26, 2012
Daljit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Balbir Kaur
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. R.S.Mehta, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J.(Oral)
In the petition filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here-in-after referred to as ' the Act '), the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.
Vide order dated 10.5.2012, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala accepted the said application and directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of 3,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and 3,300/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife.
A perusal of para 5 of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner-husband had purchased a plot worth
CR 3564 of 2012 -2-
lacs of rupees. Moreover, the respondent-wife had placed on record the copy of the statement of account of the husband. These facts have not been denied by the petitioner while filing the present revision. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to maintain the respondent-wife or that the amount of maintenance awarded is on the higher side.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN ) July 26, 2012 JUDGE ajay-1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision against the order granting interim maintenance pendente lite merits interference considering the petitioner's assets.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Daljit Singh
Balbir Kaur
T.P.S. MANN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
