2023:PHHC:058331

CR-2058-2023 (O&M)

-1-

112

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CR-2058-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: April 25, 2023

Satnam Singh

….Petitioner

versus

Harbhajan Kaur

….Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:-

Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate for

Mr. Harpreet Singh Mann, Advocate for petitioner.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein is for setting aside impugned order dated 03.10.2022

(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Muktsar

Sahib, whereby in divorce proceedings initiated by petitioner-husband, interim

maintenance pendent lite of Rs.10,000/- per month was granted to respondent-wife

from the date of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for

brevity, ‘the Act of 1955’) and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.

The revision petition is premised on the averments that marriage of

petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 13.12.2013 as per Sikh Rites and

Rituals. No child has been born out of their wedlock. Petitioner-husband is in

Indian Army. Due to some matrimonial discord, parents of respondent-wife took

her away from the nuptial home. Petitioner also filed a petition under Section 9 of

the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent did not

appear in the said proceedings. Ultimately, petitioner withdrew the said petition

and filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce from

respondent-wife.

2.1.

In the interregnum, respondent-wife filed an application under Section

24 of the Act of 1955 for grant of interim maintenance. Vide impugned order dated

MAHAVIR SINGH

2023.05.03 10:39

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/ judgment

2023:PHHC:058331

CR-2058-2023 (O&M)

-2-

03.10.2022, petitioner-husband has been directed to pay interim maintenance to the

tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent pendent lite from the date of

application and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-husband would

submit that respondent-wife is highly qualified person and her father is earning

handsome income from commercial property and also having income from other

sources. Respondent-wife has filed false application under Section 24 of the Act of

1955 for grant of interim maintenance in order to harass petitioner-husband,

whereas respondent-wife is not entitled for grant of interim maintenance, as she

has concealed material facts from the Court.

3.1.

Learned counsel would further argue that learned Family Court failed

to appreciate the fact that respondent-wife had herself deserted petitioner-husband

without any rhyme or reason and refused to join the company of petitioner. Further,

respondent-wife was mandatorily required to file affidavit of disclosure of assets

and liabilities in view of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Criminal

Appeal No.730 of 2020 titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha decided on 04.11.2020. However,

learned Family Court never asked respondent-wife to file such an affidavit.

4.

I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and

perused the case file.

5.

Impugned order dated 03.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, is premised, inter alia, on the following

reasoning:

“5.

Relationship between the parties stands admitted

being wife and husband. Applicant-wife has filed a petition

under section 13 HMAfor dissolution of marriage through

decree of divorce. Plea taken by petitioner/applicant and

defence taken by the respondent/husband requires proof and

can be taken into consideration when both the parties will lead

their respective evidence. It stands, established that applicant

has no income to maintain herself during the pendency of the

present application and she is having no source o