Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1320 (PNJ)

S. Inderjit Singh Gulati v. Parminder Kaur

2005-12-22

S.S.SARON

body2005
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Jalandhar whereby maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 1,500/- per month has been fixed for the respondent-wife during the pendency of the petition for seeking divorce filed by the petitioner-husband. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the respondent wife is a retired teacher and is getting Rs. 3,855/- per month as pension which excludes the dear-ness allowance and other allowances etc. It is further contended that the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the grant of maintenance to a party to the petition where a party is unable to maintain itself and has no independent income. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent having sufficient means to maintain herself is not entitled for any maintenance. As such, it is contended that the impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. The fact that the respondent-wife is getting Rs. 3,855/- per month has been duly considered by the learned Additional District Judge. It was observed that she has spent on the marriage of the daughter of the parties. Besides, it is in view of the fact that the respondent is getting Rs. 3,855/- per month that the quantum of maintenance has been fixed @ Rs. 1,500/- per month which, in the circumstances of the case, in my view, is reasonable. By providing for maintenance for the respondent-wife, it is not that she should live with bare minimum or just animal existence but she is entitled to all the benefits of life which go to make her life meaningful, complete and worth living. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner based on the assumption that she is to be provided with bare minimum is without any basis. Even otherwise, the scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. In Ouseph Mathai and Ors. v. M. Abdul Khadir, it has been observed that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, the grant of maintenance despite the respondent getting Rs. In Ouseph Mathai and Ors. v. M. Abdul Khadir, it has been observed that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of the above, the grant of maintenance despite the respondent getting Rs. 3,855/- as pension would not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its re-visional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed.