Partly allowed

Bhanupriya v. Rajat Juneja

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2024CRR(F)/52/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought enhancement of interim maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act; husband sought reduction. Holding that a qualified, able-bodied wife must first attempt to maintain herself and that she already received Rs.5,000/- per month in other proceedings, the High Court dismissed the wife's petitions and allowed the husband's revision.

What did the court decide?

Wife's revisions CRR-F-52-2020 and CR-2069-2020 dismissed; husband's revision CRR-F-148-2020 allowed; pending applications disposed.

Bhanupriya Vs Rajat Juneja — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 201 Date of order: 06.05.2024 CRR-F-52-2020(O&M) Smt. Bhanupriya …..Petitioner(s) Vs. Rajat Juneja …..Respondent(s) *** CR-2069-2020(O&M) Bhanu Priya …..Petitioner(s) Vs. Rajat Juneja …..Respondent(s) *** CRR-F-148-2020(O&M) RajatJuneja …..Petitioner(s) Vs. SmtBhanupriya …..Respondent(s)

¶3

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Adv o cate for the petitioner/wife(in CRR-F-52-2020) and (CR-2069-2020). None for the petitioner/ h usband (in CRR-F-148-2020). *****

¶4

SUNENA 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶5

Page 2 of 6

¶6

Nidhi Gupta, J. CRR-F-52-2020

¶7

Challenge in the present petition filed by petitioner/wif e is to order dated 04.10.2019 passed by l e arned Principal Judge, Famil y Court, Rewa r i, whereby in an application fil e d by the petitioner/wife unde r Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent/husb a nd has been directed to pa y Rs.3,333/- p e r month as interim maintenan c e.

¶8

CRR-F-148-2020

¶9

Challenge in the p resent petition filed b y

¶10

petitioner/h u sband is to order dated 0 4 .10.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari, wher e by in an application filed by th e respondent/ w ife under Section 125 Cr.P. C ., the petitioner/husband ha s been directed to pay Rs.3,333/- per month a s interim maintenance.

¶11

CR-2069-2020

¶12

Prayer in the present p e tition filed by the wife, unde r Article 227 o f the Constitution of India, is for setting aside/ modifying orde r dated 19.04.2019 (Annexure P2) passed by learned District Judge, Narnaul , whereby, in an application filed by the peti t ioner/wife under section 24 o f the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner has been granted interi m maintenanc e of only ₹2500/- per month. I t may be pointed out that vid e order dated 7.4.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, th e present Civil Revision Petition was directed t o be heard along with CRR-F-5 2 of 2020.

¶13

All of the above said thr e e petitions are being dispose d

¶14

SUNENA of by this common order as parties, facts, i s sues involved in all these case s 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶15

Page 3 of 6

¶16

are identical. For the sake of convenience, t he facts are being drawn from , and parties a re being referred to as per th e ir status in CRR-F-52-2020 file d by the petiti o ner/wife.

¶17

Learned counsel for th e petitioner/wife has inter ali a submitted t h at the interim maintenance as g ranted by learned Family Cour t is on the lo w er side as the respondent/hus b and is running a restaurant and is also havin g vehicles and is earning Rs.50, 0 00/- per month. It is submitte d that the ground on which the learned Fa m ily Court passed the impugne d order is that the petitioner is getting Rs . 2,500/- per month as interim maintenanc e in a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Ld . Counsel con t ends that the said reasoning of the learned Family Court i s untenable as nothing has been paid to the petitioner till date. It i s therefore, p r ayed that the impugned order b e set aside.

¶18

No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d

¶20

perused the case file in detail.

¶21

Perusal of record of the case shows that the petitione r was married to the respondent on 28.02.20 1 7. No child was born out of thi s wedlock. D u e to matrimonial differenc e s the parties started livin g separately since 06.07.2018 i.e. barely one a nd a half years after marriage . As such, the respondent had filed a petitio n under Section 13 of the Hind u Marriage A c t on 28.02.2019 (Annexure P1 in CR-2069-2020). In thi s petition, th e petitioner had filed an appli c ation under Section 24 of th e SUNENA Hindu Marri a ge Act wherein admittedly, t h e petitioner has been granted 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

Page 4 of 6

¶23

₹2500/– as interim maintenance. It has be e n admitted by learned counse l for the petitioner that the petitioner is also getting maintenance o f Rs.2,500/- p e r month under the Domestic V iolence Act. It has further bee n admitted b y learned counsel for the pe t itioner that the petitioner i s qualified Bachelor of Arts and is able-b o died. The petitioner also ha s knowledge o f computer however, she is not working.

¶24

At this stage, reference m ay be made to judgment of th e Hon’ble Sup r eme Court in case of “ Bhushan Kumar Meen v. Mansi Meen Allas Harpreet Kaur” (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 547724 . In the said cas e too, the wi f e albeit well qualified, was not working. Accordingly, th e Hon’ble Su p reme Court had held that “ However, having regard t o qualification s that Wife possesses, there is n o reason why she ought not t o be in a posi t ion to also maintain herself in future…”, and had accordingl y reduced the amount of interim maintena n ce granted to the responden t

¶25

wife.

¶26

Reliance may also be pl a ced upon judgment of Hon’bl e Karnataka H i gh Court in “ Smt. Shilpashree J. M. Vs. Gurumanjunatha A.S.”, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, Law Finder Doc ID # 2260157 wherein it has bee n held as und e r:-

¶27

“8. The records also disclosed t hat before marriage petitione r No.1 was working as is evident fr o m her cross examination. He r cros s examination also reveals that s he was residing along with he r mot h er. It is also evident from her admission that, even after he r dese r tion she continued to stay in t h e rented house along with he r mot h er itself and the allegation d o es establish that she was no t inte r ested to stay with respondent N os. 2 to 4. It is an admitted fac t

¶28

SUNENA 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

Page 5 of 6

¶30

that at the instance of the prese n t petitioner No. 1, a separat e hou s e was taken on rent and now t h e petitioners i.e., wife and chil d are r esiding therein along with her m other, but she was reluctant t o stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. It i s an a d mitted fact that responden t No. 1- husband is runnin g prov i sion stores. Further, he is havin g responsibility of taking care o f his m other and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was working prior to her marriag e and it is asserted that afte r mar r iage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation a s to why she is incapable of working now. She is not supposed to si t idle a nd seek entire maintenance fr o m her husband and she is als o lega l ly bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and sh e can s eek only supportive maintenan c e from her husband".

¶31

(Emphasis supplied )

¶32

In these circumstances, r eference may also be made t o

¶33

judgment o f High Court of Delhi in “Anju & Anr. Vs. Rinku Dahiya” Law Finder Doc ID # 2349279, wherein it has be e n held as under:-

¶34

“11. We observe that in the present case, where both th e spouses are equally qualified and are earning equally, interi m maintenance cannot be grante d to the wife under Section 24 o f the Act. The object of Section 24 of the Act is to ensure tha t during the matrimonial proce e dings under HMA either part y should not be handicapped and suffer any financial disability t o litigate only because of pau c ity of source of income. Th e provision for interim/pendent l i te maintenance has been mad e only to help either spouse t o sail through the litigatio n expenses and also to ensure t hat they are able to live com f ortably. The proceedings und e r Section 24 of the Act are no t intended to equalize the incom e of both the spouses or to giv e an interim maintenance which is commensurate to maintain a

¶35

SUNENA 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶36

Page 6 of 6

¶37

similar life style as the other s p ouse as has been observed b y this Court in the case of K.N. V. R.G MAT. APP.(FC) 93/201 8 decided on 12.02.2019.”

¶38

It is the considered view of this Court that it is first an d foremost, the duty of the petitioner to mai n tain herself. Admittedly, she i s able-bodied and well qualified yet, she is n o t working. As such there is n o reason mad e out as to why no effort has b een made by the Petitioner t o support her s elf. Accordingly, I find no ground is made out to enhance th e impugned interim maintenance. In view of the above, CRR-F-52-2020 and CR-2069-2020 filed by petitioner/wife are dismissed.

¶39

It has been admitted b y the learned counsel for th e petitioner/ w ife that she is already r e ceiving ₹2500/– as interi m maintenanc e under section 24, Hindu Marriage Act; as also ₹2500/– in a proceeding u nder the Domestic Violence Ac t . As such, CRR-F-148-2020 file d by the husb a nd is allowed.

¶40

Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.

¶41

06.05.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶42

SUNENA 2024.05.08 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Bhanupriya v. Rajat Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanupriya v. Rajat Juneja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasveer Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Gulshan Kumar and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Indras Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Praveen Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajat Juneja Vs Bhanupriya

Gurjinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab