Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary
C.R. No.1356 of 2016
Dharwant Singh
v.
Narinder Kaur
{Decided on 26/04/2017}
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate.
Maintenance pendete lite--Though there cannot be any evidence at this stage but still the relevant factors are necessary to be considered
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24--Maintenance pendete lite--Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner’s own income--Relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties belong, the economical dependency of the responded party--Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court is not necessary but these relevant factors, are to be taken into account and the Court is to arrive at a proper conclusion by considering these factors. (Para 12)
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24--Maintenance pendete lite--Though there cannot be any evidence at this stage but still the relevant factors are necessary to be considered--In present case, there was no discussion as to how the children are entitled for interim maintenance in a petition u/s 24 HMA--Case remanded for fresh disposal. (Para 18)
Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.10.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, whereby, interim maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month has been granted to respondent-wife and Rs. 2500/- per month each to minor children, namely, Harminder Kaur @ Harmandeep Kaur and Gurjoban Singh from the date of filing of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 09.11.2008 as per sikh rites and from the said wedlock, two children were born. However, some differences arose between the parties and the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home in the month of February, 2013. Respondent-wife has filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of litigation expenses and interim maintenance as petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was pending.
3. As per claim of respondent-wife, the petitioner-husband was working as Foreman and was getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was also mentioned in the application that there was an agriculture income of Rs. 4 lakh per year. Reply to the application was filedand averments made in the application were denied. The trial Court allowed the application by granting interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent-wife and Rs. 2500/- per month each to minor children Harminder Kaur @ Harmandeep Kaur and Gurjoban Singh from the date of filing of application.
4. Aggrieved by order granting maintenance to respondent-wife and children, the present revision petition has been filed by raising various grounds.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that therespondentwife left herself the matrimonial home on her own and took away along with all jewellery and other items. She went to her parental home with a promise to come back after a week but thereafter, she never come back. Learned counsel also submits that after some time, the petitioner visited the house of parents of respondent-wife with panchayatmembers of the village but she and her family members refused to send her back. Learned counsel further submits that the order of interim maintenance has been passed without taking into consideration the evidence and without considering the actual income of the petitioner. The petitioner wasnot working as Foreman and was not getting salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He is labourer by profession and earns only Rs. 5,000/- per month. There was no document on record to prove the income of the petitioner but still the maintenance, which is on the higher side, has been granted. Petitioner is ready to keep the respondent-wife along with children but it is only the respondent-wife, who is not ready to accompany him without any reasonable cause. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs. 7,000/- (in total) is on the higher side and the same may be reduced to some reasonable amount.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that for interim maintenance, the evidence of any income is not required to be proved as it is a matter of evidence and the same is to be considered during trial. The interim maintenance is granted only on the basis of factors that the respondent-wife is not in a position to maintain herself and there is no other source of her income. Even it has not been denied by the petitioner-husband that he is not earning anything. Only it has been mentioned that the petitioner-husband is not getting salary, which has been mentioned by the respondent-wife.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents on the file.
8. Undisputedly, the respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition, she
