Petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for maintenance of her two minor children, who are admittedly living with her. The respondent is bound in law to maintain his minor children. He has sufficient means and, therefore, is liable to pay some amount for maintenance of the two minor children. But the wife, in my view, is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite as she. is already earning a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month.
2. The undisputed facts are that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights is pending between the parties. Two minor children of the parties are living with the wife who is now employed and getting a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month, though according to the husband-respondent, she is getting a salary of Rs. 2500/-per month. The respondent has returned an income of about Rs. 18.000/- in his income-tax return and has another sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-in the National Saving Certificates.
3. The claim of the petitioner-wife for maintenance pendente lite has been declined, primarily on the ground that she is earning a sum of Rs. 1500/-per month and, therefore, was not entitled to any maintenance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the income of the husband is much more than what has been shown by him in his income-tax return, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for maintaining her two minor children as she has no means to bring up and afford the expenses of the two minor children.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for maintenance of her two minor children, who are admittedly living with her. The respondent is bound in law to maintain his minor children. He has sufficient means and, therefore, is liable to pay some amount for maintenance of the two minor children. But the wife, in my view, is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite as she. is already earning a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month.
6. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, it is ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the petitioner-wife on account of maintenance pendente lite for maintaining the two minor children. This amount shall be payable to the petitioner-wife from the date of application moved by her in the trial Court. The revision petition is allowed in the terms indicated above. No costs.
Print Page
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arti Chopra vs Sudhir Chopra on 6 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: I (1993) DMC 58, (1993) 103 PLR 458
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated February 1, 1992. whereby an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the petitioner wife was disposed of by declining maintenance pendente lite but allowing a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner-wife has filed the present revision petition.2. The undisputed facts are that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights is pending between the parties. Two minor children of the parties are living with the wife who is now employed and getting a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month, though according to the husband-respondent, she is getting a salary of Rs. 2500/-per month. The respondent has returned an income of about Rs. 18.000/- in his income-tax return and has another sum of Rs. 1,75,000/-in the National Saving Certificates.
3. The claim of the petitioner-wife for maintenance pendente lite has been declined, primarily on the ground that she is earning a sum of Rs. 1500/-per month and, therefore, was not entitled to any maintenance.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the income of the husband is much more than what has been shown by him in his income-tax return, and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite. The learned counsel further contended that in any case, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for maintaining her two minor children as she has no means to bring up and afford the expenses of the two minor children.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance pendente lite for maintenance of her two minor children, who are admittedly living with her. The respondent is bound in law to maintain his minor children. He has sufficient means and, therefore, is liable to pay some amount for maintenance of the two minor children. But the wife, in my view, is not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite as she. is already earning a sum of Rs. 1500/- per month.
6. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, it is ordered that the respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the petitioner-wife on account of maintenance pendente lite for maintaining the two minor children. This amount shall be payable to the petitioner-wife from the date of application moved by her in the trial Court. The revision petition is allowed in the terms indicated above. No costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment