In this civil revision, the husband sought to challenge an interim maintenance and litigation expenses order granted by the Family Court. The High Court scrutinized the petitioner's alleged income as a labourer but found the maintenance and expenses reasonable. The revision petition was dismissed without merit.
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.
Civil Revision No.7478 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.7478 of 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : December 13, 2012
Sh. Dharam Veer @ Bittu ...Petitioner
Versus
Renu Bala ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
Present:- Mr. Amit Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
As against the order of interim maintenance and litigation expenses passed by the Court below, the present Revision has been preferred by the husband.
The Court below ordered a magre amount of 2700/- per month to be paid to maintain the respondent wife and also her minor child. Of course a litigation expenses of 10,000/- also was ordered by the trial Court.
The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that the Revision petitioner is only a labourer.
Even assuming that the Revision petitioner is a labourer,
Civil Revision No.7478 of 2012 (O&M) 2
he would be earning not less than 4000/- per month. Out of which to maintain his wife and minor child he has to shell out at least a sum of 2700/- per month. The one time litigation expenses of ` 10,000/-
awarded by the Court below is also found to be reasonable.
In view of the above, I find that there is no merit in the Revision. Therefore, the Revision fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
December 13, 2012 p.singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance and litigation expenses awarded to the wife and minor child should be revised given the petitioner's alleged low income.
Whether the one-time litigation expenses of `10,000/- awarded by the trial court are unreasonable.
Dharam Veer @ Bittu
Renu Bala
M.JEYAPAUL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
