IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Nikhil Sharma ......Appellant Versus Divya .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for the appellant.

***

SUDHIR SINGH J.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated

12.12.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh (for short the ‘Family Court’), whereby, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by the respondent-wife, she has been held entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite besides litigation expenses of Rs.5500/-.

2. In a divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband, the respondent-wife had moved the aforesaid application asserting therein that she had no source of income, whereas, the appellant-husband was a contractor and was running a Firm under the name and style of N.V. Associates. It was further pleaded that the appellant-husband was having an income of Rs.3,00,000/- per month from the above stated sources. She had accordingly, claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, besides litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/-.

3. The aforesaid application had been contested by the appellant-husband by stating that the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial house at her own wish. It was further asserted that the respondent-wife was well qualified having the degrees of B.A. and B.Ed. and that she was serving as teacher in a private school. She was getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Apart from that, she was also earning Rs.15,000/- per month by rendering tuition to the students. It was denied that the appellant-husband was having income from business and other properties, as alleged by the respondent-wife. It was further stated that the alleged firm was running in loss.

4. On the basis of the income of the appellant- husband, learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance amount to the respondent-wife, as noticed above.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-husband has vehemently argued that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order on the basis of assumptions and presumptions inasmuch as the Family Court has not considered the fact that the respondent-wife is a well qualified lady working as a school teacher. She was also earning by rendering tuitions to the students. It was further argued that during her stay at the matrimonial house, the behaviour of the respondent-wife was cruel towards the appellant-husband and his family members. She used to misbehave with the appellant-husband and never had an intention to settle with him at the matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has further argued that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the income of the appellant between Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,70,000/- per month, as his firm is running in loss. It is thus, argued that the respondent-wife is not entitled to any maintenance from the appellant-husband due to her own act and conduct.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-

husband and have also gone through the impugned order.

7. Learned Family Court, while holding the respondent-wife entitled to the maintenance amount, as noticed above, has found that the appellant-husband is having a house measuring 250 sq. yards worth Rs.50,00,000/-. It was further found that in the income tax return of the appellant-husband for the Financial Year 2021-22, he had disclosed an income of Rs.13,31,337/-. It was further found that the respondent-wife being MBA/B.Ed was also capable to fetch her livelihood, though to some extent. It was further found that she could not be allowed to sit idle in the home while claiming the entire maintenance from the appellant-

husband.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband could not show that the respondent-wife has any source of income, as al