Present:- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar Advocate Vs. Amita - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1063024
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-11-2013
AppellantPresent:- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar Advocate
RespondentAmita
Excerpt:
cr no.4101 o”1. in the high court of punjab & haryana, chandigarh cr no.4101 of 2013 date of decision july 11, 2013 sanjay bhola ......petitioner versus amita .......respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice k. kannan present:- mr.sukhdeep parmar, advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. whether reporters of 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?.k.kannan, j (oral).1. the petitioner is aggrieved by the direction given for payment of `5,000/- as maintenance. the plea of the counsel appearing on behalf of the husband is that the wife has not adduced any evidence with reference to his own employment status and the court has also not taken notice of the wife's employment and her capacity to earn. according to him, she is earning `10,000/- and a provision for `5,000/- per month is very high. the counsel would plead that the only property which he had in his native village has been disposed of and he shifted to wife's place in panipat and was living in his parents-in-law's house and supporting them all. he has not been thrown out of the house and he is literally on streets. in a matrimonial setting the manner of empowering a litigant to contest cr no.4101 o”2. the case particularly of the wife shall be to provide interim maintenance. the court that passes an order does so in a summary fashion on the contentions raised by the parties. a provision for `5,000/- for a wife and a child in these days of high costs cannot be said to be high even if the wife were to be earning some amount. i cannot take a bare contention that he is living on the streets. he has not fully disclosed of what he is actually doing and what income he is earning. the nature of proof at the interlocutory stage cannot be extracting and i would believe that the trial judge understands that a summary order is at all times passed on assessing the capacities of parties and the reasonable wants.”2. i will find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. the civil revision is dismissed. (k. kannan) judge july 11, 2013 archana
Judgment:

CR No.4101 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No.4101 of 2013 Date of decision July 11, 2013 Sanjay Bhola ......Petitioner Versus Amita .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.

KANNAN Present:- Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** 1.

Whether reporters of 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?.K.Kannan, J (oral).1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction given for payment of `5,000/- as maintenance.

The plea of the counsel appearing on behalf of the husband is that the wife has not adduced any evidence with reference to his own employment status and the Court has also not taken notice of the wife's employment and her capacity to earn.

According to him, she is earning `10,000/- and a provision for `5,000/- per month is very high.

The counsel would plead that the only property which he had in his native village has been disposed of and he shifted to wife's place in Panipat and was living in his parents-in-law's house and supporting them all.

He has not been thrown out of the house and he is literally on streets.

In a matrimonial setting the manner of empowering a litigant to contest CR No.4101 o”

2. the case particularly of the wife shall be to provide interim maintenance.

The court that passes an order does so in a summary fashion on the contentions raised by the parties.

A provision for `5,000/- for a wife and a child in these days of high costs cannot be said to be high even if the wife were to be earning some amount.

I cannot take a bare contention that he is living on the streets.

He has not fully disclosed of what he is actually doing and what income he is earning.

The nature of proof at the interlocutory stage cannot be extracting and I would believe that the trial judge understands that a summary order is at all times passed on assessing the capacities of parties and the reasonable wants.”

2. I will find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

The civil revision is dismissed.

(K.

KANNAN) JUDGE July 11, 2013 archana