In a civil revision under Article 227, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging an order awarding monthly maintenance pendente lite. The Court held the amount was not excessive relative to the petitioner's admitted income and the number of dependents.
The revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be meritless.
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. 176 of 2006
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 176 of 2006 Date of decision : September 05, 2013
Vijay Bharti
....Petitioner
versus
Monika Bharti
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for Mr. DK Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioner
None for the respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Husband Vijay Bharti has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.12.2005 passed by the Matrimonial Court thereby allowing application filed by respondent-wife Monika Bharti under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and directing the husband-petitioner to pay ` 10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite for the respondent wife and three minor children born out of the wedlock between the parties, admittedly residing with
Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 176 of 2006
-2-
respondent, besides litigation expenses of ` 5000/-.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded is excessive keeping in view the income of the petitioner-husband. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner-husband is admittedly running advertisement agency. Consequently, his stand that his net income is 10,000/- per month only cannot be accepted. On the other hand, maintenance @ 10,000/- per month has been awarded for four persons i.e. for respondent-wife and three minor children of the parties residing with her. In these circumstances, the said amount of maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be excessive so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In addition to the aforesaid, application by respondent was filed on 18.10.2005 and the divorce petition out of which this revision has arisen has since been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one vide order dated 1.12.2006 as revealed on perusal of the trial court file. Consequently, dispute relates to period of 13½ months only for which no interference is called for by this Court.
Resultantly, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error
Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 176 of 2006
-3-
in impugned order of the Matrimonial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly
dismissed.
September 05, 2013 'dalbir'
( L.N. Mittal ) Judge
Tiwana Dalbir Singh 2013.09.06 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document. High Court, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance pendente lite awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is excessive warranting interference under Article 227.
Whether the High Court can interfere in the matrimonial court's order allowing maintenance application under supervisory jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vijay Bharti
Monika Bharti
L.N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
