Manjot Singh vs Surjit Kaur

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M.M. No. 90 of 2010:

Heard.

Non-applicant - petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses to the applicant - respondent for the instant revision petition. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Main Case:

Husband Manjot Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali), thereby disposing of application moved by respondent wife - Surjit Kaur u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short - the Act) and directing the husband to pay to the wife Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of application.

Version of the wife is that she has no source of income. Earlier, she was employed as teacher with some NGO, but on completion of project in the year 2009, she has been rendered jobless and has no source of income. The husband is admittedly employed in the Punjab Health Systems Corporation Limited, Mohali. The wife alleged that the salary of the husband is Rs. 16,000/- per month. Counsel for the husband admitted in the trial court that salary of the husband is Rs. 15,279/- per month. The wife alleged that the husband also has two acres of agricultural land and has income from it. The husband, however, denied any income from agricultural land. The husband also alleged that the wife is working as beautician and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and she also has income from agricultural land and house belonging to her parents and brothers, who are settled in America. It was also pleaded by the husband that wife is residing in the house of husband''s parents and is using the articles of daily needs provided by the husband and his parents and is also not supposed to pay the electricity charges. The wife admitted that she is residing in the house of parents of the husband and is not to pay the electricity charges, but she denied that she was being supplied articles of daily needs by the husband and his parents.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention that the respondent-wife is residing in a portion of flat of petitioner''s parents and is being supplied daily necessities by the petitioner and his parents. Learned Counsel for the respondent, however, reiterated the version of the respondent that she is residing in a part of the flat of husband''s parents and she is not to pay the electricity charges, but she is not being supplied any articles of daily necessity by the petitioner or his parents.

The petitioner is earning salary of over Rs. 15,000/- per month. The petitioner also alleged that he has taken car loan from the bank and has to pay instalments thereof. It would rather show that the petitioner is maintaining a car and leading life of good style and therefore, respondent is also entitled to same life style. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has to maintain his parents also. However, this contention is completely untenable because petitioner''s father retired as a Gazetted Officer and petitioner''s mother also retired as CDPO and both of them are getting pension. They have their own flat also. Consequently, the petitioner is not bearing any financial burden to maintain his parents and rather it may be other way round.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, in my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if the amount of maintenance pendente lite is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is ordered accordingly.

The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.