Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1134 (PNJ)

Ajay Duggal v. Preeti Duggal

2000-09-19

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 17.5.1999, passed by the District Judge, Chandigarh, who awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- by way of maintenance pendente lite to the minor daughter namely Ms. Urmi aged about 6 years, who is presently in the custody of her mother Smt. Preeti Duggal by holding that petitioner Shri Ajay Duggal is earning Rs. 40,000/- per month. 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by Smt. Preeti Duggal against her husband Shri Ajay Duggal and along with the petition she also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which she claimed maintenance pendente lite for herself as well as for her child. 3. The trial Court did not grant maintenance pendente lite so far as Smt. Preeti Duggal is concerned but awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the minor daughter for the reasons given in para No. 13 of the impugned order, which are reproduced as under :- "This leaves us only with one problem of course, the daughter is living in the custody of the mother, but it is settled proportion of law that even if the mother is earning, it is the legal obligation of the father of the minor child to maintain it. It is also settled principle of law that the need of minor child in custody of its mother can also be taken into consideration while disposing of the application of the mother under Section 24 of the H.M. Act. Thereafter, in the present case the needs of minor child can also be taken into consideration while disposing of the application of the mother under Section 24 of the H.M. Act. Fortunately, the minor child is an off- spiring of affluent parents. Her father is a Chief Officer in the Merchant Navy and mother an Architect. The income of the father is Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, the minor daughter is also entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of her father. So, keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the father Ajay Duggal is directed to pay Rs. The income of the father is Rs. 40,000/- per month. Therefore, the minor daughter is also entitled to a standard of living commensurate with that of her father. So, keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the father Ajay Duggal is directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to his minor daughter, which amount shall be paid by him to her mother and next friend Smt. Preeti Duggal". 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 5. During the course of submission, it has been conceded at the bar by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a Master of Mariner and earlier he was working as Chief Officer on ship and was getting Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is also conceded at the bar by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that Smt. Preeti Duggal is educated lady and she is working as Architect in the firm of her brother-in-law and gets Rs. 10,000/- per month. Ms. Urmi is aged about six years and she is getting her education in a Carmel Convent School, Chandigarh under the care of her mother and her monthly fee is Rs. 500/- per month apart from other expenses being incurred on uniform and rickshaw etc. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attacked the order dated 17.5.1999, mainly on two grounds; firstly, that there was no basis for the trial Court to hold that the income of the husband was Rs. 40,000/- per month and secondly Smt. Preeti Duggali is the natural guardian also along with the petitioner as per the dictum of Honble Supreme Court and she being an earning hand, should also contribute in the maintenance of the daughter. 7. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the reasons given by the learned District Judge in the impugned order. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the learned District Judge, cannot be held to be harsh or on the higher side specially keeping in view the status of the parents of the child. 8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of maintenance pendente lite awarded by the learned District Judge, cannot be held to be harsh or on the higher side specially keeping in view the status of the parents of the child. The petitioner has a very good qualification and with the assistance of that qualification he can always earn a suitable amount. It is true that respondent is getting Rs. 10,000/- per month but she is getting salary for her own maintenance. This is the reason that the trial Court has not awarded the maintenance pendente lite to Smt. Preeti Duggal. The child has the independent right of maintenance from her parents. There is no prima facie evidence led by Shri Ajay Duggal to convince this Court or the trial Court about his actual earning capacity or about his assets or savings etc. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order when the prices of essential commodities are touching sky high. The respondent, who is the mother of the child, is supposed to impart best education to her minor child and this aspect of the case cannot be over-looked by the High Court. 10. Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this revision and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.