Allowed

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Sept 2014CR/3017/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision under Article 226, the High Court enhanced interim maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, raising it from Rs 1,000 to Rs 2,000 per month for minors and Rs 3,000 for the wife.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced maintenance pending suit to Rs 2,000 per month for minors and Rs 3,000 for the wife; litigation expenses increased to Rs 7,000.

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Sukhwinder Singh — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Revision No.3017 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:9.9.2014

¶5

Paramjit Kaur and others

.....Petitioners

Sukhwinder Singh

.....Respondent

Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶11

.....

¶12

Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Vikas Bahl, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

¶14

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶15

Paramjit Kaur etc.-petitioners have filed this civil revision petition against Sukhwinder Singh-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for modification of impugned order dated 4.3.2013 (Annexure-P.2) and thereby enhancing the maintenance pendente lite to 8,000/- per month and litigation expenses to 10,000/- as the amount of `3,000/- granted by the learned trial Court is extremely on the lower side.

¶16

Notice of motion was issued in this case. The respondent appeared through counsel and contested this petition.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

¶18

through the record.

¶19

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.26 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

C.R. No.3017 of 2013 (O&M)

¶21

[2]

¶22

From the record, I find that the relationship between the parties is admitted fact. It is admitted fact that two minor children are residing with the wife (present petitioner Paramjit Kaur), who filed petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for maintenance. In that application, she stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor children whereas Sukhwinder Singh-respondent has 10 acres of land in his name and having a mini bus and is earning 60,000/per month. Hence, the application was filed for grant of 30,000/- i.e. 10,000/- per month maintenance each to the applicant and two minor children and `10,000/- as litigation expenses.

¶23

Respondent-Sukhwinder Singh did not file the reply to contest the application which means that the averments made in the application were not rebutted by filing the reply.

¶24

As regards the fact, as to whether Paramjit Kaur committed cruelty or not, it is to be decided in the main petition. At this stage, it is an application for interim maintenance and there is nothing on the record to show any source of income of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to maintenance. It is in the order that Paramjit Kaur has placed on the file copy of Jamabandi showing the land in the name of Sukhwinder Singh from which it can be inferred that the respondent has sufficient income from the said land and the Court fixed the income of Sukhwinder Singh at 12,000/- per month and granted maintenance _pendente lite_ @ 1,000/- per month each to the petitioners i.e. total `3,000/- per month. A perusal of the order itself shows that the maintenance granted by the learned HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.26 14:35 Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 4.3.2013 is on much I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

C.R. No.3017 of 2013 (O&M)

¶26

[3]

¶27

lower side. Even if it is taken that Sukhwinder Singh's income is 12,000/as assessed by the learned Additional District Judge, even then only total amount of 3,000/- was granted to three persons and Sukhwinder Singh was left with the amount of `9,000/-.

¶28

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners for modification of this amount. Therefore, the maintenance pendente lite is enhanced to 2,000/- each from 1,000/- to the minors and 3,000/- from 1,000/- to wife-Paramjit Kaur keeping in view the high prices of food articles, clothing and other goods of daily necessity. The litigation expenses are also increased to `7,000/-.

¶29

The civil revision petition is allowed accordingly, and the impugned order dated 4.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar is modified.

¶30

September 9, 2014.

¶31

(Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶32

hsp

¶33

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2014.09.26 14:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramjit Kaur & Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh

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

Nirbhay Kaur and Anr. Vs New Anaj Mandi and Ors.

Om Parkash Vs Satbir and Ors.

Sukhwinder Singh and Anr. Vs Sarabjit Kaur and Ors.

Gursham Singh Vs Inderjit Singh and Anr.

Jagtar Singh & Anr. Vs Resham Kaur & Anr.

Subhash Chand Sharma Vs Meer Singh and Ors.