IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 Raj Kumar ……....Appellant Versus Rajni …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Mr. Pranav Handa, Advocate, for the appellant.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

CM-22696-CII-2025 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 22 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-6401-2025

1. Appellant-Raj Kumar (husband) assails order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Jalandhar, whereby an application filed by the respondent (wife) under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act during the pendency of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending between the parties, has been accepted to the extent that maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent (wife) apart from litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside inasmuch as the respondent (wife) is herself gainfully employed and is earning Rs.8500/- per month while working as a sales girl, which is sufficient for sustenance and that under these circumstances, the appellant (husband) who is earning merely Rs.14,500/- per month should not have been burdened with any maintenance pendente lite.

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

4. Although the respondent (wife) in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act asserted that the appellant (husband) was employed in Rail Coach Factory (RCF), Kapurthala and was getting a monthly salary of Rs.45,000/-, but the appellant (husband) while denying the said assertion took a stand that he was in fact working as a driver with M/s Ganika Enterprises and getting a salary of Rs.14,500/- per month only. Although the appellant (husband) also asserted that the respondent (wife) was working as sales girl and earning Rs.8500/- per month, but no evidence to this effect had been brought on record and as such, the learned Family Court has correctly discarded the said plea of the respondent (wife) being an earning hand.

5. Admittedly, the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant.

The appellant in any case admits that he is earning Rs.14,500/- per month while working as a driver with M/s Ganika Enterprises. Although the salary, as disclosed by the appellant (husband), is rather on the lesser side, but even if the said figure of Rs.14,500/- is taken to be correct, still the amount of Rs.6000/- per month as awarded by the learned Family Court towards maintenance pendente lite cannot be said to be excessive or to be on the higher side as in the present times one can hardly sustain himself or herself with a meager amount of Rs.6000/- per month.

6. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 and the same is upheld. Finding no merit in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI)

12.11.2025 JUDGE Vimal