IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

116 FAO-7090-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 29, 2026 Sanjay .....Appellant Vs.

Preeti ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Present: Ms. Jyotika Behl, Advocate for Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

----

R AMESH KUMARI J.

CM-25465-CII-2025 The present application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of

27 days in filing the present appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

FAO-7090-2025

1. By way of filing the present appeal, the appellant-husband has challenged the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandigarh, vide which Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month, as maintenance pendente lite was awarded to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of application till the decision of the main petition in a petition filed by the appellant (husband) under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that:-

i) The earning of appellant-husband is Rs.42,000/- per month. Two children born out of lawful wedlock are residing with him;

ii) The respondent-wife is earning Rs.12,000/- per month as Yoga Instructor.

iii) Grant of maintenance pendente lite of Rs.10,000/- per month is on the higher side.

3. We have considered the submissions addressed by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court.

4. While passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court noted that:-

“In this regard, it is observed that a perusal of the cross- examination of petitioner as PW1 reveals that he has stated that he is earning about 25-30 lacs per annum from the business, but in his affidavit, he has shown his income as Rs. 42,000/- per month, which appears to be on lower side. If argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is considered that petitioner wanted to say that it was the turnover of the business and not the profit, even then it is made out that he is earning more than Rs.42,000/- per month.”

5. The learned trial Court rightly observed that Rs.42,000/- per month as a salary of the appellant-husband is stated to be on lower side, since he has turn-over of Rs.25-30 lacs per annum from his business.

6. Learned trial Court also took into consideration the income of the respondent-

wife as Rs.12,000/- per month. Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife is reasonable to allow her to have a decent standard of living with total funds of Rs.22,000/- per month considering the ever increasing prices of essential commodities.

7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandigarh. The appeal is dismissed as such.

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(GURVINDER SINGH GILL) (RAMESH KUMARI)

JUDGE JUDGE January 29, 2026 sonia arora