Dismissed

Jaibir v. Sheela Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Sept 2014CR/5953/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed to quash an interim maintenance order of ₹7,000 per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that while the petitioner argued the amount was excessive and noted prior 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance, the order was correct. Dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Settled that ₹7,000 per month interim maintenance awarded under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is sustainable and the revision petition is dismissed.

Jaibir Vs Sheela Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

117

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR No.5953 of 2014 Date of decision: September 03, 2014

Jaibir

...Petitioner

Versus

Smt.Sheela Devi

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.M.S.Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner Jaibir has filed this revision petition against Sheela Devi respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.05.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Jhajjar.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶15

From the record, I find that Sheela Devi wife of the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the divorce petition filed by Jaibir. The relationship between the parties is admitted fact. As per the record, respondentwife has no source of income to maintain herself, whereas the present petitioner, who was respondent in that application, was working as Clerk in the office of Collector, Rohtak. The respondent-applicant stated that petitioners is drawing salary of `25,000/- per month VINEET GULATIwhereas the case the present petitioner is that he is earning about 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CR No.5953 of 2014

¶17

-2-

¶18

`19,000/- per month as gross salary.

¶19

Learned District Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 31.05.2014 by taking the salary of petitioner as 25,000/- per month, granted interim maintenance @ 7,000/- per month to the respondentwife and also awarded 7,000/- as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this amount is excessive one. Even if the salary of the present petitioner, as per the salary certificate is taken, it comes to 19,380/- per month, therefore, keeping in view the gross salary of the petitioner, in no way, it can be held that amount of `7,000/- per month granted by learned District Judge as interim maintenance is an excessive amount in view of the high prices of goods of daily need and food.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that maintenance has already been awarded in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. On this point, I find that order of interim maintenance can be passed in various proceedings but the applicant is to receive the maintenance only in one proceeding. Therefore, it is for the applicant to receive the maintenance in the present proceedings or in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶21

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 31.05.2014 passed by learned District Judge, Jhajjar, is correct and as per law and the same is upheld.

¶22

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the

¶23

same is dismissed.

¶24

September 03, 2014 VINEET GULATIVgulati 2014.09.10 10:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

Jaibir v. Sheela Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaibir v. Sheela Devi

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

Tarsem Singh Vs Kamlesh Kumari and Anr.

Fauja Singh Vs Samitter Singh

Swaran Chand Vs Balwinder Singh & Anr.

Mohan Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ravinder Kaur Vs Ajaib Singh & Anr.

Sanjiv Garg and Ors. Vs Punjab Rban Planning & Development Authority