Dismissed¶34

Amit Jangra v. Deepika

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2025FAO/215/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAO dismissed; maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 upheld; Family Court Rohtak order affirmed; wife's earning-capacity objection rejected for want of evidence; husband's affidavit disclosed Rs.1,90,000/- monthly income; Rs.30,000/- per month interim maintenance under Section 12 DV Act accounted for and award made adjustable against related proceedings; litigation expenses Rs.11,000/-; appeal against Section 9 HMA petition ancillary application.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no illegality in the impugned order of the Family Court warranting interference, and dismissed the appeal. ¶29

Amit Jangra Vs Deepika — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.11.2024 of the Family Court, Rohtak awarding the respondent-wife maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 calls for interference in this appeal. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

This Court found no illegality in the impugned order of the Family Court warranting interference, and dismissed the appeal.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Family Court had found that the respondent/wife had no source of income and that the appellant/husband had placed no evidence on record to prima facie substantiate his allegation regarding her higher qualification and earning capability; these findings stood and supported refusal to interfere.

¶28

Key takeaways

The appellant/husband had himself mentioned his monthly income as Rs.1,90,000/- in the affidavit of assets and liabilities, which weighed against his denial of the means attributed to him.ratio¶28
The factum of grant of Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance in the proceedings under the DV Act was taken into consideration by the learned Family Court, answering the appellant's contention that it had been ignored.ratio¶28
As observed by the learned Family Court, the amount awarded in the present proceedings shall be adjustable against the amount awarded in related proceedings between the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sudhir Singh, J., for the bench incl. Sukhvinder Kaur, J.) dismissed the husband's FAO against the order dated 07.11.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak allowing the wife's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in her Section 9 petition, whereby she was awarded Rs.40,000/- per month maintenance pendente lite besides Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses. The appellant's contentions — that the wife, being more qualified (M.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineering), could maintain herself; that she had concealed a pre-existing ailment; and that the interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month granted in DV Act proceedings had been ignored — were rejected: the Family Court had found the wife had no source of income and the husband had placed no evidence on record to prima facie substantiate her alleged earning capability; the husband's own affidavit of assets and liabilities disclosed monthly income of Rs.1,90,000/-; the DV Act interim maintenance was taken into consideration, and the amount awarded was made adjustable against related proceedings between the parties. No illegality was found warranting interference; pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

FAO-215-2025 (O&M)

¶2

129

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO-215-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: February 10, 2025

Amit Jangra

….Appellant

versus

Deepika

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

¶11

Present: - Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for th e appellant.

¶12

¶13

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Challenge in the present ap p eal is to the order dated 07.11.2024 p assed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak (for short the ‘Family Court’), w h ereby, an application under Section 24 o f the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respond e nt-wife, has been allowed, and she has been awarded a sum of Rs.40,00 0 /- per month as maintenance pe n dente lite, besides litigation expenses of R s.11,000/-.

¶15

In a petition under Section 9 of the Act, filed by the respondent/ w ife, she had also filed the afo r esaid application, inter alia , averring the r ein that she had no source of i ncome. She was also taking care of her minor girl child of about 8 m o nths and was living at the mercy of h e r parents. It was averred tha t the appellant/husband was

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶18

FAO-215-2025 (O&M)

¶19

Bachelor of Technology from IIT Roorki and was serving as Senior Application Engineer in Ansys (U.S based company) at Sector 126, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and was earning Rs.41 lakh per annum. The appellant/husband had no liability except the respondent/wife and the minor girl. Thus, the respondent/wife had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite , Rs.25,000/- for minor girl and Rs.25,000/- for house arrangement.

¶20

The said application was contested by the appellant/husband contending that the respondent/wife was not entitled to maintenance due to her own act and conduct of cheating the appellant/husband by concealing her pre-existing ailment. The respondent/wife had herself left the society of the appellant. He denied earning of Rs.41 lakh per annum, and submitted that in fact, his salary was Rs.1,50,000/- per month and he also had a financial liability of Rs.80,000/- per month towards repayment of loan, including the housing loan. He was also paying Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and minor girl as interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act’). The respondent/wife was more qualified (M.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineer) than the appellant/husband and was skilled, competent and capable of earning handsomely.

¶21

The learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife, as noticed above.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant/husband vehemently contends that while passing the impugned order, learned Family Court

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

¶25

FAO-215-2025 (O&M)

¶26

has ignored the factum of interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month already granted to the respondent/wife in the proceedings under the DV Act. It is further argued that as the respondent/wife is more qualified than the appellant/husband, she can very well earn to maintain herself. It is also argued that the respondent/wife is not entitled to any maintenance amount as she had concealed the factum of her pre-existing ailment from the appellant/husband.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order.

¶28

It was found by the learned Family Court that the respondent/wife had no source of income, and that regarding the allegation of the appellant/husband with respect to higher qualification and earning capability of the respondent/wife, he had not placed on record any evidence to prima facie substantiating the same. The appellant/husband had himself mentioned his monthly income as Rs.1,90,000/- in the affidavit of assets and liabilities. It was also admitted fact that minor girl was in the custody of the respondent/wife. The factum of grant of Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance in the proceedings under the DV Act was also taken into consideration by learned Family Court. It was also observed by the learned Family Court that the amount awarded in the present proceedings shall be adjustable against the amount awarded in related proceedings between the parties.

¶29