Manmeet Singh vs Gurpreet Kaur

L.N. Mittal, J.—Manmeet Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) moved by respondent Gurpreet Kaur and thereby directing the petitioner herein to pay to respondent herein Rs 5000/-per month as maintenance pendente-lite from the date of filing of petition and Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses.

Respondent wife has filed divorce petition against husband petitioner. During the pendency of the divorce petition, the wife claimed maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses by filing application u/s 24 of the Act. It was alleged that wife is temporarily employed and has no permanent source of income and that husband is running a business and earning more than Rs 50,000/- per month.

On the other hand, the respondent-husband in his reply alleged that the wife was earning Rs 19,183/-per month as salary income and she is, therefore, able to maintain herself whereas husband is earning Rs 5500/- per month only.

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

Admittedly, the respondent-wife is employed and earning Rs 19,183/-per month. Consequently, it cannot be said that the wife is not able to maintain herself.

As regards income of the husband, learned counsel for the respondent-wife vehemently contended that in the bio-data, the husband claimed his income to be Rs 40,000/-per month. However, on perusal of the bio-data as shown by learned counsel for the respondent himself, it transpired that the husband mentioned his income to be Rs 15,000/-to Rs 40,000/-approximately per month. Apparently, some exaggerated income is mentioned in matrimonial bio-data, but even if figure given in bio-data is taken to be correct, the income of the husband was not mentioned to be Rs 40,000/-per month but was mentioned to be ranging from Rs 15,000/-to Rs 40,000/-. The husband now claims that on account of recession, his income has decreased considerably.

Keeping in view the income of the wife herself to be about Rs 20,000/-per month, the wife does not have a right to claim maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses from the husband. The impugned order is completely un-sustainable.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon is set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that the respondent is in temporary job. However, if and when there is change in circumstance i.e. if and when respondent ceases to be in employment, she would be at liberty to file fresh application u/s 24 of the Act before the trial court, for appropriate relief in accordance with law.