108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 Parteek ..... Petitioner Versus Swati .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shalini Singh Nagpal J.

CRM No.33583-2025 An application under Section 528 BNSS for placing on record Annexure P-1 to P-8 filed. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, same stands allowed and Annexure P-1 to P-8 placed on record.

CRR(F) No.1232-2025 (O&M)

1. Order dated 07.08.2025 of learned Principal District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, awarding interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent-wife has been challenged in this Revision Petition.

2. The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Family Court, while assessing interim maintenance allowance failed to consider the fact that the respondent-wife was highly qualified and as per her Income Tax Return for the year 2021-2022, her annual income was Rs.3,89,623/-. He further submitted that even though petitioner was working in State Bank of India and his gross salary was more than Rs.1,00,000/-, his carry home salary was only Rs.39,821/- per month on account of EMI of home loan and car loan. Moreover, he was living on rent and was paying Rs.15,000/- rent per month. In this context, he referred to Annexure P3 and P4-statement of accounts and Annexure P5-rent agreement.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner is working as CSO in State Bank of India and his gross salary is Rs.1,08,085/-. This is so reflected in the order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Even if the respondent- wife is well qualified, being MA/B.Ed., there is nothing on record to show that at the time when the petition was filed, she was an earning hand. Even otherwise, law is fairly well-settled that earnings of the wife cannot operate as a bar for award of maintenance against the husband. The Court has to determine whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself in accordance with lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home. Claim of maintenance cannot be rejected on the sole ground that the wife is well-qualified, thus capable of maintaining herself. The Income Tax Return of the wife does not pertain to the year of the maintenance application and her previous income which she may be earning earlier, cannot be considered for the purpose of assessing interim maintenance.

4. Petitioner’s claim that he was paying EMIs of personal loan, car loan etc., leaving him with net salary of only Rs.39,821/- is not sustainable. As per settled law, only compulsory statutory deductions such as income tax can be reduced from the gross salary. The petitioner cannot seek to evade maintaining his wife on the plea that he has taken upon himself financial liabilities i.e. home loan and car loan.

5. Considering the status of life of the parties, the income of the husband and the reasonable wants of the wife, interim maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month, cannot be termed excessive. The order under challenge is neither illegal nor perverse, warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.

7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

26.08.2025 JUDGE Sumit Singla