Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 752 (PNJ)

Maneet Kaur v. Devinderpal Singh

2012-05-28

RAJESH BINDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: - This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 5897 and 7900 of 2010. 2. In Civil Revision No. 5897 of 2010, order dated 21.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in an application filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), in a petition for divorce filed by respondent Devinder Pal Singh under Section 13 of the Act, is under challenge and the prayer is for enhancement of maintenance. 3. In Civil Revision no. 7900 of 2010, while challenging the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, in a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘ the Domestic Violence Act’), inter-alia, prayer is for enhancement of maintenance and also for providing residence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife submitted that the petitioner had been turned out of the matrimonial home. She has no place to reside of her own. At present, she is dependent upon her father and residing with him. The matter was earlier settled. The divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband was withdrawn by him. However, still in terms of the settlement, maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- per month is not being paid to her. The respondent-husband belongs to a well known jeweller family of Patiala, who owns property worth crores of rupees. His monthly income is running into lacs. The petitioner-wife is entitled to live with same status and dignity. The petitioner has got, the only child born out of the wedlock, admitted in Pinegrove School, Dharampur, District Solan (Himachal Pardesh). The annual fee is about Rs.3,00,000/-. He had to be admitted in a boarding school for the reason that he was unable to bear the trauma of the matrimonial dispute of his parents. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no evidence produced on record by the petitionerwife in support of her application under Section 24 of the Act. Whatever was determined by the learned court, was paid by the husband till such time the divorce petition was withdrawn. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no evidence produced on record by the petitionerwife in support of her application under Section 24 of the Act. Whatever was determined by the learned court, was paid by the husband till such time the divorce petition was withdrawn. As far as the petition under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, it was submitted that without there being any evidence on record, though the learned court below had fixed Rs.4,000/- per month, still the respondent-husband at his own stated before this court on 7.4.2011 in Civil Revision No. 7900 of 2010 that he will pay Rs.11,000/- per month more to support his wife and son from 1.2.2011 onwards. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband further submitted that to be fair to his wife and son, the respondent-husband has instructed him to state that he will pay another sum of Rs.8,000/- to the wife as an interim measure, otherwise in the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, no evidence has been led in support of her claim by the petitioner-wife. While disputing the settlement between the parties, it was submitted that it was under pressure. He further submitted that in Criminal Misc. -M No. 6569 of 2011 Jaswinder Kaur and others vs State of Punjab and another filed by the family members of the respondent-husband, this court vide order dated 1.9.2011 had stayed passing of the final order. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paperbook. 7. As far as Civil Revision No. 5897 of 2010 arising out of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, determining maintenance in an application under Section 24 of the Act is concerned, the relevant period is merely from April 2010 to August 2010, for which Rs.10,000/- was fixed as maintenance, which has already been paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner wife. It is not in dispute that on record there is no material showing the income of the husband which could enable this court to fix any amount of maintenance in this case. 8. As far as fixing of interim maintenance in Civil Revision No. 7900 of 2010 pertaining to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, even in that case also no evidence has been led by the petitioner-wife. 8. As far as fixing of interim maintenance in Civil Revision No. 7900 of 2010 pertaining to the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, even in that case also no evidence has been led by the petitioner-wife. The earlier settlement between the parties, where maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month was allegedly agreed to be paid by the respondent-husband to the petitioner wife, was disputed by the respondenthusband. Rs.4,000/- per month was fixed as maintenance by the learned court below vide order dated 29.10.2010. In addition to that as per the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-husband on 7.4.2011 another sum of Rs.11,000/- per month is being paid with effect from 1.2.2011. Today, even before this court, it was stated by learned counsel for the respondenthusband that till such time the matter is decided by the learned court below, the husband will pay another sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitionerwife. 9. Considering the aforesaid stand of learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, at present the ends of justice will be met in case the respondent-husband is directed to pay another sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner wife subject to final decision by the learned court below in the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The additional amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid from March 2012 onwards. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that entire maintenance payable to the petitioner has been cleared upto May 2012. From June 2012, the amount of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month in total shall be deposited/ transferred by the respondent-husband in the bank account of the petitioner- Maneet Kaur, bearing Account No. 65039013025, State Bank of Patiala, Sector-17, Chandigarh. 10. From June 2012, the amount of maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month in total shall be deposited/ transferred by the respondent-husband in the bank account of the petitioner- Maneet Kaur, bearing Account No. 65039013025, State Bank of Patiala, Sector-17, Chandigarh. 10. As there is no evidence on record for determining the maintenance in the petition under Section 24 of the Act, considering the fact that it is a matrimonial dispute, instead of remitting the matter back to the learned court below to enable the parties to lead evidence, in my opinion, it can be resolved that whatever maintenance is finally fixed by the court in the complaint filed by the petitioner-wife under the Domestic Violence Act, which was filed in August 2010 and the entitlement of the petitioner for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act is from April 2010 to August 2010, the same amount shall be payable from April 2010 onwards which will take care of the entitlement of the petitioner even under Section 24 of the Act. To make it clear, it is directed that whatever amount has already been paid shall be adjustable against the amount finally determined. 11. The petitions are disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------