Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1264 (PNJ)

Jaspal Singh v. Harjinder Kaur

2009-07-29

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2009
JUDGMENT AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the husband has challenged the order dated 12.5.2009 whereby the trial court has awarded a sum of Rs.3000/-as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing of the divorce petition and Rs.6000/-as litigation expenses to the wife-respondent. Besides the aforesaid amount, the trial court has also directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of the order in case the maintenance amount is not paid within a period of one month. The trial court while awarding the aforesaid amount had relied upon the salary slip of the petitioner-husband where his net monthly salary was shown to be Rs.10,480/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the award of maintenance is excessive and the same has been awarded from the date of filing of the divorce petition. Secondly, he has assailed the award of interest by the trial court. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh v. Amarjeet Singh, 1990 (2) CLJ 206 and a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Padma Vishnu Pathak v. Vishnu Vishwanath Pathak, 1995 (2) CCC 515 (Gujarat) in support of his submissions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any merit in either of his contentions. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) reads thus:- “24. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any merit in either of his contentions. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”) reads thus:- “24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable: Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.” Section 24 has been enacted with the object where either the husband or the wife, as the case may be, has no independent income to support him or her can obtain maintenance pendente lite and expenses from the other spouse so as to enable him or her to pursue the proceedings under the Act without any hardship. It, however, does not stipulate as to from which date the amount of maintenance is to be paid. Therefore, the Court in its discretion can award the maintenance either from the date of the filing of the divorce petition or from the date of application for maintenance or from the date or passing of order of maintenance. The discretion vested in the court under the aforesaid provision is to be exercised according to judicial conscious and fair play and to meet the ends of justice and not in an arbitrary or whimsical manner. In the present case, the divorce petition was filed on 11.12.2008 and the trial court had awarded maintenance from the date of the filing of the divorce petition. The said order cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction in any manner. In the present case, the divorce petition was filed on 11.12.2008 and the trial court had awarded maintenance from the date of the filing of the divorce petition. The said order cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction in any manner. Furthermore, a sum of Rs.3000/-per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs.6000/-as litigation expenses has been determined by the trial court which is payable to the respondent-wife and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said to be excessive or exaggerated. Now adverting to the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court has directed the petitioner husband to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the passing of the order in case the maintenance amount and the litigation expenses are not paid within a period of one month. It may be noticed that the interest awarded by the trial court is compensatory in nature. The award of interest by the trial court, thus, cannot be faulted and it cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The judgments in Balbir Singh and Padma Vishnu Pathak's cases (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not support his case as the facts of those cases were different from the present one. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.