Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 141 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Mamta

2010-01-07

S.D.ANAND

body2010
Judgment S.D.ANAND, J. 1. The petitioner -respondent has a grievance that the fixture of rs.2800/- per month (Rs.1000/- for the respondent-wife and Rs.600/- each for the three children of the parties in her custody), out of the assessed monthly income of Rs.3000/- in the hands of the petitioner, is harsh inasmuch as it would leave only a sum of Rs.200/- with him for his maintenance for the entire month. 2. The impugned order came to be granted by the learned Trial Judge while allowing an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife for the award of ad-interim maintenance. The plea, raised by her in support thereof, was that she has no means of sustenance for herself and her three school going children and that as against it, the petitioner-husband has monthly income of Rs.25,000/- from all sources. 3. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge noticed that neither party had placed on record any authentic proof with regard to their respective income. The learned Trial Judge noticed that the petitioner herein being an able bodied young man cannot escape liability to maintain his resource-less wife and minor children. His monthly income was assessed to be that of an unskilled labourer. It was in appreciation of the above fact that the impugned award of maintenance came about. Inspite of effecting of service, the respondent opted to refrain from entering appearance. The respondent is noticed on record to have been first served to appear before this Court on 7.10.2009. As none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent, a Coordinate bench (Sabina J.) adjourned the proceedings to 20.11.2009. Even on that date, the case was called out twice but none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and the matter came to be adjourned to today as well. None has appeared for the respondent today as well. I have heard Mr. Mani Ram Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have carefully gone through the file. Learned counsel is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the assessment of monthly income of the petitioner. His only grievance is that he has hardly been left with anything which could enable him to sustain himself and to also look after his aged paralysed mother. 4. Learned counsel is not in a position to challenge the correctness of the assessment of monthly income of the petitioner. His only grievance is that he has hardly been left with anything which could enable him to sustain himself and to also look after his aged paralysed mother. 4. Though the former facet of the plea is acceptable on the face of it, the latter deserves negation for the simple reason that the petitioner has nowhere averred (in the course of reply filed to the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act) that he has a mother to support and there also was obviously no averment qua her health status as well. In the absence of pleadings to that effect the petitioner-husband cannot be heard to presently aver that he also has an ailing and aged mother to look after. 5. Though the quantification of the monthly income of the petitioner by the learned Trial Judge cannot be questioned, the impugned order is open to the vice of being harsh in character. How would a person sustain himself with a paltry sum of Rs.200/- per month defies logical comprehension. 6. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be liable to pay ad-interim maintenance to the respondent and three minor children putting up with her at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month in toto (Rs.500/- per head ). The duration with effect from which that amount is payable does not call for any variation and the order passed by the learned trial Court in that behalf shall hold the fort. It is apparent from the impugned order itself that this petition under the Hindu Marriage Act is pending since 4.6.2008. Needless to reiterate that the cases of indicated category require dedicated expeditious approach. The parties to the marital controversy undergo lot of unavoidable emotional turmoil and this Court would expect that adjudication in a matrimonial matter is concluded by the Trial judge within a reasonable period. In making that observation, this Court is not unmindful of the heavy dockets of pendency in the Courts all over the two sister States and Union Territory, Chandigarh. At the same time, the Courts ought to priorties the pending matters and accord noticeable and deserve priority to cases of certain hues. In making that observation, this Court is not unmindful of the heavy dockets of pendency in the Courts all over the two sister States and Union Territory, Chandigarh. At the same time, the Courts ought to priorties the pending matters and accord noticeable and deserve priority to cases of certain hues. It would hardly require to be stressed that if the litigation of this category has to end in severance of ties, the parties must be in the know of its fate at the earliest. It would enable them to take recourse to the further remedy available to them on the judicial side, in case the affected party has a grievance with the validity of the finding. If, for one reason or the other, the parties accept the adjudication with a touch of finality and decided to refrain from approaching the higher forum, they would be able to endeavour matrimonial settlement elsewhere. Be that it may, the expeditious and time-bound disposal must be the hall mark of a judicial adjudication in respect of a case of this category. It is ordered accordingly that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of this petition within six months with effect from 20.1.2010. The petitioner, though his counsel, is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 20.1.2010. It will for the learned trial Court to secure the presence of the party opposite expeditiously and deal with the matter thereafter in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly.