Gurinder Pal Singh @ Rana Dhillon vs Kanwalvir Kaur

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC for setting aside the order dated 12.08.2013 (Annexure P/1) whereby application filed by the respondent-wife u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned District Judge, Faridkot, after appreciating the evidence on record, directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite and Rs. 6,000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent-wife. The learned District Judge while allowing the application for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses of the respondent-wife has rightly observed as under:-

In view of the pleadings of the parties, undisputedly, the parties to the lis got married on 30.11.2007. Also, it is not disputed that from their wedlock, one daughter was born on 23.09.2011. Admittedly, prior to the marriage of the applicant with the respondent, the applicant Kanwalvir Kaur, was a widow of one professor Gursharan Singh, son of S. Gurpreet Singh, resident of Village Sivian, who died in a car accident, on 23.04.2007. Also, it is not disputed that, two female children namely Parneet Kaur and Ishneet Kaur, were born from the earlier marriage of the applicant with Gursharan Singh. Also, it is not disputed that, on account of matrimonial discord, they are residing separate from each other and all the three daughters, are residing with their mother, applicant Kanwalvir Kaur. In the light of the afore straightened facts, now the claim of the applicant for grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses, is resisted on the ground that, already sufficient amount is available, in the hands of the applicant, to maintain herself and her three daughters. In this regard, much emphasis is laid on the FDRs to the extent of Rs. 66,991/- each, in the names of two minor daughters of the applicant from her first marriage. Even on behalf of the respondent, much emphasis is laid down the compromise, reached between the applicant with her in-laws family of her earlier marriage, wherein, it was decided that a sum of Rs. 01 lac shall be paid to the applicant and her children, annually. On the basis thereof, it is submitted that, sufficient amount is available, in the hands of the applicant. Besides the same, the applicant is also stated to be the owner of the agricultural land.

So far as, FDRs prepared in the names of the children of the applicant, from her previous marriage, are concerned, same are not to be looked into, as the said FDRs are in the names of minor daughters of the applicant and, it is quite obvious that, the amount invested by way of FDRs, shall be available to the minor daughters, only when they attain majority Even, photocopy of the compromise effected between the applicant and in-laws family of her previous marriage, is there on the record. No doubt, as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, there is a clause of payment of Rs. 01 lac per annum, to the applicant, as maintenance amount by in-laws family of her previous marriage, but, however, at this stage, there is nothing, as such, coming on record, about the compliance of this term of the compromise. Even, jamabandi for the year 2007-2008, has been produced on the record. Perusal of the same reveals that it relates to `Gair Mumkin'' land and whether, there is any income, accruing to the applicant, from the land, as depicted in the said jamabandi, is a matter, which can only be adjudicated, after the evidence is brought, on the record. At this stage, suffice to consider the affidavit filed by the applicant, thereby, stating about herself to be having no source of earnings. In these circumstances, on account of remarriage of the applicant with the respondent, the respondent in the capacity of being husband, is duty bound to maintain the applicant. Though, the applicant has stated about the respondent to be having 15 acres of agricultural land, but, however, the respondent himself has stated that he is having 8 acres of the land and that he is getting Theka of the said land to the extent of Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum, but, however there is no material coming on record, to so substantiate, this plea. Definitely, the amount of Theka received by the respondent, must be on the higher side. Considering the same in the light of no affidavit having been filed by the respondent, to support his contentions and also, considering the fact that, the applicant is maintaining three daughters, I hereby allow the application and direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- (four thousands) per month, to the applicant, as maintenance pendente-lite, during the pendency of the petition. The aforesaid amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of application. Besides the same, the respondent is also directed to pay, one time payment of Rs. 6,000/- (six thousands) as litigation expenses to the applicant....

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order specifically in view of the fact that although the respondent-wife is having three minor daughters, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, two are from the earlier husband and one is from the present petitioner, even then Rs. 4000/- per month has only been awarded as maintenance. Dismissed.