IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: February 06, 2025 Manoj Kumar ….Appellant versus Pooja ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

*****

SUDHIR SINGH, J. (ORAL)

CM-1584-CII-2025 For the reasons stated in application, same is allowed. Delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case (O&M)

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh (for short the ‘the Family Court’), whereby, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent/wife, has been disposed of and the appellant/husband has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of filing of the application, besides Rs.25,000/-

as litigation expenses.

2. In a petition under Section 13 of the Act, filed by the appellant/husband, the respondent/wife had filed the aforesaid application, inter alia, averring therein that she had no source of income and was completely dependent upon the appellant/husband. The appellant/husband had various sources of income and was also in possession of many movable and immovable properties, apart from owning two shops at Sector 19-C, Chandigarh. His monthly income from various sources was more than Rs.70,000/- per month. It was further averred that the appellant/husband was also in possession of a double storey house bearing No.3879, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh. The appellant was also investing in mutual funds, shares and maintained various bank accounts. The appellant had no other liability. He had intentionally neglected and refused to maintain the respondent/wife. Thus, the respondent/wife had claimed Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. The said application was contested by the appellant/husband inter alia denying the averments made by the respondent/wife in the aforesaid application, and stated that he had responsibility of his old age father who was a patient of chronic Asthma and other ailments. He has two younger sisters of marriageable age, and one of them was suffering from arthritis and was bed ridden. It was further asserted that his monthly income was Rs.23,333/-. The respondent/wife was not entitled to any maintenance or litigation expenses as she had her own independent source of income at Ludhiana. The appellant was not having any immovable property or any shop and that the double storey house was owned by his father.

4. The learned Family Court has disposed of the application filed by the appellant/wife, as noticed above.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband argues that in other proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., the respondent/wife has already been granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as interim maintenance, besides Rs.8,000/- as litigation expenses. He submits that the said interim maintenance granted in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. ought to have been adjusted while awarding maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, but no finding has been given in this regard, in the impugned order.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order.

7. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C., an amount of Rs.6,000/- was already granted to the respondent/wife as interim maintenance, and the said amount was required to be adjusted while deciding application under Section 24 of the Act.

8. The learned Family Court, vide impugned order, while disposing of the application of the respondent/wife has observed as follows:-

“11- I have carefully considered the case law on the point, facts of the case, circumstances of the parties, the fact that the respondent wife is suffering from Breast Cancer