Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1253 (PNJ)

Kanwarjit Kaur v. Ajit Singh

2012-09-20

M.JEYAPAUL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - Heard the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner. 2. The wife Kanwarjit Kaur, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court has come up with the present Revision. 3. The husband Ajit Singh filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the trial Court. The Revision petitioner moved an application invoking the provisions under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and claimed maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses. The trial Court was pleased to award interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month and a sum of Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses to the Revision Petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court the husband Ajit Singh came forward with a Civil Revision No. 2270 of 2010. By virtue of an order passed by this Court in the said Revision on 25.05.2011, the Court having made an observation that even if the amount of Rs.1500/- awarded to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also added to the sum of Rs.5000/- awarded as maintenance pendente lite by the trial Court, the total sum came to only Rs.6500/- which was more or less 1/3rd of the pay being received by the husband, chose to dismiss the Revision. 5. The Revision petitioner having completely misread the decision of this Court passed in CR No.2270 of 2010 dated 25.05.2011, filed an application before the trial Court praying to direct the husband to pay the maintenance of Rs.6500/- per month. 6. The trial Court having adverted to the rival submissions made with respect to that application held that only a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded by it towards maintenance pendente lite and, therefore, the trial Court is competent to direct the husband to pay only the sum of Rs.5000/- as maintenance pendente lite and not a sum of Rs.6500/- which is the aggregate of the maintenance already awarded to the Revision petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. The Revision petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application has come forward with the present Revision. 8. 7. The Revision petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application has come forward with the present Revision. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would submit that this Court in Civil Revision No. 2270 of 2010 dated 25.5.2011 has held that the wife is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6500/- as maintenance, inspite of the fact that the trial Court chose to award maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would also submit that the Revision petitioner is entitled to maintenance both under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. The Civil Revision No.2270 of 2010 was preferred by the husband challenging the quantum of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Firstly, in the said Revision filed by the husband challenging the quantum of interim maintenance awarded, this Court has no authority to raise the maintenance awarded by the trial Court, in as much as the wife had not come out with any Revision seeking enhancement of maintenance pendente lite. Secondly, this Court made only an observation in the order passed by it on 25.5.2011 that even if both the maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act are added together, it comes only to a sum of Rs.6500/-. No order has been passed that the wife is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.6500/- towards maintenance pendente lite of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. In my considered view, the wife is not entitled to double maintenance. If, she has already been awarded maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that would merge with the maintenance pendente lite awarded by the trial Court invoking the provisions under Sections 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In other words, the Court while dealing with the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, will have to take into account the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct payment of maintenance pendente lite. 11. In other words, the Court while dealing with the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, will have to take into account the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct payment of maintenance pendente lite. 11. In as much as only a sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded by the trial Court as maintenance pendente lite, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to direct the husband to pay over and above the amount awarded by it. 12. The Civil Revision is totally misconceived and, therefore, it stands dismissed. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------