SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 890

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Raj Kumar
Versus
Jyoti
C.R. No. 1186 of 2006,
Decided On : MARCH 2, 2006

Headnote:

Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Maintenance - Court considers petitioner's gross salary in determining maintenance amount

Fact of the Case:

The court was reviewing an order granting maintenance to the wife and her children under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, during the pendency of a divorce petition filed by the husband.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the maintenance amount and litigation expenses awarded by the lower court were not on the higher side, considering the petitioner's gross salary.

Issues: Application under Sec.24 of the Act for maintenance and litigation expenses during the pendency of a divorce petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's gross salary in determining the maintenance amount and upheld the lower court's decision.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the order granting maintenance to the wife and her children.

Judgment

1. The order dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Addl. District Judge, while isposing of an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, the Act), has been challenged in this petition. According to the impugned order, the wife-respondent has been granted maintenance a t the rate of Rs.1000/- per month and her two children have been granted maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month for each child. Litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- have also been awarded in favour of the wife-respondent. It is appropriate to mention that the petitionerhusband has filed a petition under Sec.13 of the Act, for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. It was during the pendency of the petition that an application under Sec.24 of the Act has been filed, which has been disposed of vide impugned order.

2. After hearing learned counsel, I am of the considered view that, keeping in view the gross salary of the petitioner, which is Rs.8968/-, the maintenance amount as well as litigation expenses, awarded by the court below cannot be considered on the higher side. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top