C.R.No.730 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr.No.206 Case No.: C.R.No.730 of 2012 Date of Decision : Aug.
16, 2013 Nepal Adak ...Petitioner versus Smt.
Mithilesh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL * * * Present : Mr.J.S.
Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Jaswal, Advocate for the respondents.
* * * L.N.MITTAL, J.
(Oral) : Husband Nepal Adak has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Matrimonial Court, thereby directing the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to respondent no.1-wife Mithilesh, besides Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses, on application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Monika 1955.
2013.08.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No.730 o”
2. The wife alleged in her application that she has no source of income and she has to maintain herself as well as minot son of the parties, admittedly residing with her.
The husband is running a Sweet Shop and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month.
Besides it, he has property which has been rented out.
The husband, in his reply, alleged that he is running a small Tea Shop, thereby earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day and he has no rental income .
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1 is living in adultery with respondent No.2.
Reference in this regard was made to Panchayati Compromise (Annexure P-1) and Video CD and photographs (Annexure P-2).Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is earning Rs.100/- to Rs.150/- per day only by running a small Tea Shop.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent no.1-wife contended that the husband is having sufficient income from the shop as well as rental income.
It was also submitted that the maintenance pendente lite has been awarded by the Matrimonial Court, keeping in view the fact that minot son of the parties is also residing with the wife.
I have carefully considered the matter.
The question of adulterous life of respondent No.1 with Monika 2013.08.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No.730 o”
3. respondent No.2 cannot be taken into consideration, at this stage.
The same has to be determined in divorce petition, which has been instituted by the petitioner-husband against the respondents.
The sole question to be determined in the instant revision petition is regarding quantum of maintenance pendente lite.
The petitioner- husband is running a shop in his own two shops no.5 and 6.
Consequently, it cannot be said that he is running a small Tea Shop.
Even an unskilled casual labourer earns Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month these days.
Petitioner's income from the shop can be safely said to be more than that of unskilled casual labourer.
In addition to it, the petitioner could not specifically deny the averments of the wife that the petitioner has other properties also, although rental income was denied by the husband in his reply.
However, when the husband is residing on the fiRs.floor of the shops, as mentioned by the wife in her application and is also having some other properties, it can be assumed that he is having some additional rental income besides his income from the shop.
In the aforesaid circumstances, maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.5,000/- per month for the wife as well as for the minot son cannot be said to be excessive.
It is expressly clarified that the aforesaid amount shall include maintenance for the minot son also and separate maintenance for the minot son shall not be claimed.
Monika 2013.08.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C.R.No.730 o”
4. For the reasons aforesaid, and subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, I find no merit in this revision petition.
Impugned order of the Matrimonial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
Civil Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
Aug.
16, 2013 ( L.N.MITTAL ) monika JUDGE Monika 2013.08.16 17:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh