High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Vikram Singh Rana v. Mrs. Mamta - CR-2497-2006  RD-P&H 2596 (25 April 2006)
Civil Revision No.2497 of 2006
Date of decision:5.5.2006
Vikram Singh Rana
Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S. Saron, J.
This petition has been filed against the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby maintenance pendente lite for the respondent-wife has been fixed at Rs.1300/- per month and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses.
Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.10.2002.
There is no issue from the said marriage. After marriage, the parties lived at Chandigarh together. However, they could not pull on. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act' for short) alleging that the respondent-wife had treated him with cruelty and, therefore, the marriage between them be dissolved by a decree of divorce. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite which has been allowed in the terms as indicated above.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact CR No.2497/2005
the petitioner has no means to maintain the respondent-wife as he is earning only Rs.800/- to Rs.1200/- per month. Besides, it is contended that the father of the petitioner has also disowned him. In the circumstances, he cannot pay the maintenance @ Rs.1300/- per month or pay the litigation expenses.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in the same.
In the order dated 30.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, it has been noticed that in the matrimonial advertisement got published in the newspapers on 5.5.2002, the petitioner claimed himself to be graduate having a private job in computer and doing computer work.
Besides, he also claimed that he is having agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh.
In the circumstances, the income of the petitioner was assessed to be not below Rs.4,000/- per month. Accordingly, the maintenance was fixed. There is nothing on record to show that the father of the petitioner has disowned him and, therefore, he is unable to maintain the respondent.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the amount of maintenance and litigation expenses fixed is just and proper and call for no interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
May 5, 2006. (S.S. Saron)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.