IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 Anil Kumar ...Appellant Versus Renu ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate, for the petitioner.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The appellant/husband assails order dated 18.08.2025 vide which the Family Court, Sonipat while allowing an application filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month during the pendency of a petition filed by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the HMA’) for dissolution of his marriage.

2. While the respondent/wife in her application under Section 24 of the HMA asserted that she has no source of income and that her husband is a Government Teacher earning Rs.1,25,000/- per month and also has agricultural as well as rental income to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per month, the appellant/husband in his reply took a stand that the respondent/wife is living in adultery with one Amit and as such, is not entitled for any maintenance and is in fact earning Rs.3 lakhs per month and is living a luxurious life with her paramour.

3. The Family Court while considering the contentions and evidence on record, accepted the application and awarded maintenance to the respondent/wife at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month vide impugned order dated 18.08.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband while assailing the impugned order submitted that since the respondent/wife is leading an adulterous life and in fact was also earning handsomely and was maintaining bank balances, the maintenance of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the Family Court deserves to be set aside.

5. We have considered the submissions and have also gone through the impugned order.

6. The appellant/husband has admitted the factum of his being a Teacher and has admitted his salary to be Rs.94,198/- per month and his annual agricultural income to be Rs.55,000/-. While it does appear that there have been transactions in the bank accounts of the respondent/wife, but there is nothing on record to show that she was having any regular income or that she was gainfully employed or earning anything. In any case, even if she is said to be an earning hand, it is expected that she maintain a similar living standard as maintained by her husband i.e. the appellant. Having regard to the status and income of her husband, the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be on higher side nor said finding can be termed as perverse particularly when there is no concrete evidence as regards any regular source of income of the respondent/wife. The contention of the appellant that the respondent is disentitled from claiming maintenance as she is living in adultery cannot be accepted at this stage as the said factum can only be established by leading concrete evidence at appropriate stage.

7. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is hereby upheld. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE

08.10.2025 (LAPITA BANERJI)

Vimal JUDGE