Civil Revision No.4078 of 2013 -:
1. :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4078 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: May 20, 2014. Vikrampal Singh ... Petitioner v. Sandeep Kaur and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present: Shri D.K. Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ram Kumar Verma, Advocate for the respondents. Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Having married non-applicant/petitioner-husband Vikrampal Singh on 27.9.2009 and having a daughter born on 12.8.2010 from this marriage, the applicant-wife by way of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act preferred by non-applicant/husband, had sought interim maintenance for herself and the child, which was granted to the extent of Rs.2,500/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,500/- for the daughter vide order of 12.4.2013 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rup Nagar from the date of application viz. 28.1.2013.
2. This order is under challenge at the behest of the non- applicant/petitioner husband in this revision petition preferred by him invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is claimed by the revision petitioner/non-applicant- husband that in a separate proceeding under the Protection of Women From Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.05.28 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4078 of 2013 -:
2. :- Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter mentioned as the 2005 Act) the court concerned has already ordered him to pay Rs.4,500/- per month as rent (of the premises to be provided to the wife) and has also been ordered to pay yet another Rs.4,000/- as maintenance. It is further claimed that when his income has been found to be in the range of Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month, and when he is already paying Rs.4,500/- as rent + Rs.4,000/- as maintenance to the wife and the child, he is not in a position to spare another amount of Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the wife, as has been ordered now vide the impugned order.
3. Hearing has been provided while perusing the paper book.
4. Neither marriage between the parties nor a daughter having been born out of this wedlock on 12.8.2010, is in dispute. It is also a conceded fact that the applicant-wife is living away from the matrimonial home for allegedly justifiable reasons. She needs money to support and sustain herself as also the minor daughter for which, liability of the husband is not in dispute. However, it is claimed by the husband that she is earning Rs.15,000/- per month herself being a qualified teacher holding M.A., B.Ed degree and having passed other professional courses of fashion-designing, interior-designing, etc. The plea of the husband has not even prima facie been established.
5. Any order made by another court in some other proceedings is not to stand in the way of adjudication of the matter in controversy coming before another superior court. Merely because in an application under Section 23 of the 2005 Act, the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib vide its order of 22.2.2013 had assessed monthly income of the respondent as Rs.8,000/-, there was no impediment in assessing the income of the husband afresh particularly when in her application (Annexure P-2) under Section 24 of the Act, applicant-wife had categorically mentioned income of the husband from a private job in a Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.05.28 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4078 of 2013 -:
3. :- company to be more than Rs.30,000/-. In his reply, making a sweeping denial regarding his salary, the petitioner-husband claimed the wife to be earning Rs.15,000/- per month, as has been mentioned earlier, but he has not produced any prima facie material to support. The impugned order whereby income of the husband has been assessed to be in the range of Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/- per month, thus, being wrong, does not hold ground. Had the non- applicant/husband been truthful, he was to produce his salary certificate on record in a bid to show that he was earning less than Rs.30,000/-. When the wife is not earning anything and husband is earning to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month, merely because he has been ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- per month for maintenance of his wife and daughter in proceedings under the 2005 Act, applicant-wife is not debarred from seeking maintenance in a divorce petition forced on her by another suitor.
6. At this stage, it is worth notice that the respondent-wife is not vacating the portion of the house wherein the husband has no right, title or interest and thus, the said premises are not in the nature of shared accommodation. The owners of the said house, viz, parents of the petitioner, per force are living out of this house as she is not allowing them to live there. When counsel for the respondent-wife has vociferously argued for enforcement of this order, he has also urged that the wife along with the minor child is in destitution, but has no answer to the fact that the husband is paying Rs.4,500/- every month to owner of another house, where a house has been taken on rent by him for the applicant respondent-wife since January, 2013. It is a conceded fact that pursuant to earlier orders of 20.2.2013, the applicant-wife was to shift to another rented accommodation to be provided and the husband was to pay another Rs.4,000/- for maintenance of the wife. It has sufficiently come on record that right from January, 2013, having taken the premises on rent for residence of the applicant-wife and the daughter, the petitioner-husband is paying Rs.4,500/- for rent for accommodation to the owner with further liability of payment of Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.05.28 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.4078 of 2013 -:
4. :- Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance per month. A litigant who violates order of a court with impunity and seeks enforcement of yet another order, is to be taken with a caution. It is also noteworthy that in the present application under Section 24 of the Act, factum of fixation of maintenance in an earlier proceeding under the 2005 Act has not even been mentioned. When compliance of orders of the court is legitimately expected from the applicant-wife, present petition by the husband being of no merit, income of the husband having been taken to be Rs.30,000/- when it was wrongly taken in the range of Rs.8,000/- to 10,000/-, does not need any interference. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Nothing expressed in this order shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon]. May 20, 2014. Judge kadyan Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.05.28 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh