In a revision against an order directing interim maintenance of `3,000/- for the wife and minor child, the Court held that inability to pay is not a valid ground to deny bare sustenance. The revision was dismissed.
The revision was dismissed.
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 & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No.2654 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision July 8, 2013
Manish Bhatnagar
....... Petitioners
Versus
Kavita Bhatnagar
........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:Mr. I. S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
K. Kannan, J (oral).
interim maintenance of 3,000/- for the petitioner and her minor child and litigation expenses of 2,000/-. The counsel argues that the petitioner is un-employed and he is not in a position to pay. This cannot be an argument to be made to deny what is necessary for bare sustenance of the wife. There is no scope for interference in such an order for interim maintenance.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
July 8, 2013 archana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court's order directing interim maintenance can be interfered with on the ground of inability to pay.
Manish Bhatnagar
Kavita Bhatnagar
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
