In a revision petition challenging an order awarding maintenance pendente lite, the court held that given the respondent-wife's independent income, the awarded amount of Rs. 5000 per month was excessive and required modification to Rs. 4000 per month.
Maintenance pendente lite reduced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month.
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.
C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision.17.11.2018
Vishal Thakur ......Petitioner
Vs
Ruchi Thakur ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been directed at the instance of the husband against the order dated 09.02.2017 whereby the application of the respondent-wife submitted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of maintenance pendente lite by awarding maintenance @`5000/- per month, has been allowed.
Mr. Surinder Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the facts revealed from the impugned order, concededly the respondent-wife is working in the JCT Limited and drawing salary of 10,600/- per month whereas the petitioner is serving as Lecturer in Lovely Professional University, drawing an income of 26,000/- per month. He has to look after after his old parents. In such circumstances, the salary earned by the respondent was sufficient for her to enjoy the amenities which she had been enjoying before the matrimonial dispute.
On the other hand, Mr. Gurmeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that there is no
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.29 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.R. No.1932 of 2017 (O&M) -2-
illegality and perversity in the order based upon the decision of this Court as wife is entitled to enjoy the same amenities which she had been enjoying in the company of the husband, thus, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that once the income of the parties is not in dispute, the decision of the Court below while relying upon the ratio decidendi culled out by this Court in Rajwant Kaur Vs. Jagdeep Singh 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 90 holding that the wife is entitled to same amenities had she been staying with her husband is correct view. But in the present case, the wife is herself earning certain amount, therefore, in such circumstances, the amount is liable to be modified.
In view of the aforementioned facts, the order under challenge is modified and the maintenance pendente lite is reduced from 5000/- to 4000/- per month with no change in the litigation expenses. The revision petition is disposed of.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
November 17, 2018 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No
PANKAJ KUMAR 2018.11.29 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance pendente lite awarded to the respondent-wife should be modified given her self-employment.
Whether the quantum of maintenance should be reduced when the wife has an independent source of income.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajwant Kaur Vs. Jagdeep Singh 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 90Relied on¶19
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishal Thakur
Ruchi Thakur
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
