IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-07.04.2025 Pardeep Periwal ......Petitioner Versus Ruchi Periwal and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Karan Grover, Advocate for the petitioner.

(Through V.C.).

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

CRM-13008-2025 The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 43 days in filing of the present revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 43 days in filing the present petition, is hereby condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

Main case

1. The present is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband against his wife-respondent No.1 and his minor son-respondent No.2 who is of the age of 10 years, challenging the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, whereby interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.20,000/- per month to respondent No.2-minor son has been granted.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner through V.C. while giving the brief facts of the case submitted that it is a case where the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife got married to each other on 13.07.2013 at Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. Thereafter one male child was born out of the wedlock on 15.04.2014 who is respondent No.2 in the present petition and who is now living with his mother who is respondent No.1 in the present case. Matrimonial dispute arose after the marriage and respondent-wife made various allegations against the petitioner including demand of dowry etc. He further submitted that in November 2021, the petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is still pending and as a counter-blast of the same, a petition for grant of maintenance along with an application for grant of interim maintenance was filed by the respondent-wife.

3. He further submitted that both the petitioner (husband) and respondent No.1 (wife) furnished their respective affidavits regarding the declaration of assets and liabilities, in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, 2021 (2) SCC 324. The petitioner also filed a reply to the petition for the grant of maintenance and interim maintenance. He submitted that in his reply to the petition filed before learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, he had stated in para No.24 that he has an income of Rs. 90,000/- per month and this reply has also been attached with the present petition vide Annexure P- 10 dated 08.01.2023. He further stated that in April 2023 the petitioner left his job and is now unemployed and the fact regarding his unemployment was so incorporated in the affidavit of declaration of assets and liabilities and the petitioner was unemployed and was not earning anything at the time the impugned order regarding interim maintenance to respondents was passed and therefore the impugned order is erroneous. Regarding the income of the wife, he submitted that even as per her affidavit of declaration of assets and liabilities which is also an admitted position, she is working as a teacher in a private school and she is earning an amount of Rs.18,000/-. Even as per her affidavit and therefore there was no occasion for the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, to have awarded a maintenance of Rs.10,000/-per month to respondent No.1-wife once respondent-wife is already working although as a teacher in a private school and is earning Rs.18,000/- per month.

4. He submitted that so far as the interim maintenance which has been granted to respondent No.2-minor son of the age of 10 years, is concerned, although the minor son is in the custody of respondent No.1- wife but the petitioner wishes to take the custody of the child and also to maintain him after taking his custo