High CourtsSingle Bench

Renu Goswami @ Ramandeep Kaur and Another vs Mandeep Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 21 May 2014 · Citation: (2014) 05 P&H CK 0541

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaswant Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13, 24
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CR 3568/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 320 words

Jaswant Singh, J.—Petitioner wife and minor son of respondent are in revision seeking enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 7000/- and Rs. 3000/- per month respectively to the wife and minor son granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 23.4.2014 (P-6) on the application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioners in the divorce petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted by the respondent husband.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3.

It is not disputed that marriage between the petitioner wife and respondent husband was solemnised on 18.11.2005. Out of their wedlock two sons were born on 20.1.2007 and 23.9.2010 respectively. It is further not disputed that the elder son is residing with the respondent husband while the younger one(petitioner No. 2 herein) is residing with the mother. It is not disputed that the respondent is employed in Indian Air Force. As per his salary slips from June 2013 to September 2013, his gross salary is Rs. 31,006/- and after deductions his net salary comes to Rs. 13,089/-. It is also not disputed that petitioner wife is an educated lady and respondent husband has alleged that she holds a diploma in embroidery and dress designing. Of course, with the net salary of Rs. 13,089/- respondent cannot be believed to be able to pull on his life with one minor son, mother and two sisters, as alleged in his reply and it can safely be inferred that he has got other source of income, which however, petitioner wife has not been able to substantiate. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the learned Additional District Judge by adopting judicious approach has rightly granted maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 7000/- and Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner wife and son respectively and no case for interference is made out.

4.

Dismissed.