Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1760 (PNJ)

Ram Chander v. Usha Rani

2010-05-21

D.ANAND

body2010
ORDER : D. Anand, J. A petition filed by the Petitioner-husband, for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent-wife was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2005. The Respondent-wife filed an application for the setting aside thereof. That plea came to be allowed vide order dated 29.4.2008. The Petitioner-husband is in revision against it. It is in the course thereof that the wife has applied for the award of litigation expenses and maintenance pendente lite. 2. In view of the fact that the salary certifications filed by the parties were not clear, it was ordered that the Accounts Officer, Jagadhri Workshop, Jagadhri shall appear in person to clarify. Mr. Narender Sharma, Section Officer, (Northern Railway, Jagadhri Workshop, Jagadhri) has appeared on his behalf. 3. It has been ascertained with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties and Mr. Narender Sharma, Section Officer, (Northern Railway, Jagadhri Workshop, Jagadhri) that the present carry home salary of the Petitioner-husband is Rs. 22,638. The statutory deductions have been excluded; while the voluntary deductions have been included in it. There is no controversy that the Petitioner-husband and other members of his family are residing in their newly constructed house, photograph whereof has been placed on record as Annexure A-2. 4. Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner husband, states that the quantification of the amount payable to the Respondent-wife may be done keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner herein has an aged mother and two children of his to support. Those children were born to the Respondent-wife from the loins of the Petitioner and they are putting up with the latter. He has also married another lady. It is clarified on behalf of the Petitioner that the second marriage of the Petitioner came about after dissolution of his marriage with the Respondents-wife. The learned Counsel further points out that the second wife of the Petitioner has also brought along a pichhlag son. 5. It is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent may not be held entitled to any maintenance because she is earning by doing the job of stitching, etc. with which she is familiar. 6. As against it, the pure and simple plea raised by the Respondent-wife is that she has no means of sustenance for self. It is not disputed by her that two children of the parties are putting up with the Petitioner-husband. 7. with which she is familiar. 6. As against it, the pure and simple plea raised by the Respondent-wife is that she has no means of sustenance for self. It is not disputed by her that two children of the parties are putting up with the Petitioner-husband. 7. The present is a case wherein the Petitioner has a place to reside with other members of his family; while Respondent-wife has to fend for herself for the purpose of residence. Except an averment, there is not even resemblance of proof that the Respondent-wife is actually earning anything. 8. In the totality of the above noticed circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Respondent-wife shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000 per month. The Respondent-wife shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 11,000 as litigation expenses.