CR No.6663 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6663 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 27, 2013.
MRS.Rosy Bhardwaj ....Petitioner Versus Manu Dutt Bhardwaj .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Bhupinder Banga, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for the respondent.
**** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
(Oral) Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby maintenance CR No.6663 o”
2. pendente lite has been reduced from ` 5,000/- to ` 4,000/-.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-wife filed application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short “the Act').During the pendency of the said petition, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the petitioner.
The trial Court, vide order dated 12.10.2009, ordered the respondent-husband to pay an amount of ` 5000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance pendente lite.
Thereafter, vide impugned order, on the application moved by the respondent-husband for rescinding the order dated 12.10.2009, the maintenance pendente lite has been reduced to ` 4000/- from ` 5000/-.
Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Admittedly, the petitioner-wife is serving in DAV, School.
The trial Court while taking into consideration the increase in salary of the petitioner-wife as admitted by her in the statement made in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has reduced the maintenance pendente lite, but the Court has not taken into consideration the rise in prices, day-to- day cost of living and expenses which are to be borne by the petitioner on education of the minot child, who is stated to be studying in a private school.
Keeping in view the above facts and without going further into other aspects, at this stage, this Court deems fit and appropriate that the impugned order dated 19.09.2011 is liable to be set aside and the order CR No.6663 o”
3. dated 12.10.2009 whereby petitioner-wife was awarded maintenance pendente lite to the tune of ` 5,000/- per month, is restored, with the modification that the said amount shall be paid from the date of filing of application under Section 24 of the Act instead the date of passing of order i.e.12.10.2009.
Ordered accordingly.
The deficient amount shall be paid by the respondent within three months from today.
Disposed of.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge August 27, 2013 parveen kumar