Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1890 (PNJ)

Gaurav Kumar @ Jolly v. Sunita @ Saneha @ Sonu

2017-08-21

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

body2017
JUDGMENT : Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. The petitioner-husband has impugned the order dated 26.05.2017 of the District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby, the Court has allowed maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs. 3000/- per month to the minor child and Rs. 5000/- as litigation expenses to be paid to the respondent by the petitioner. 2. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 30.11.2007 at Moga as per Hindu rites. From this wedlock one male child was born. There were disputes and differences between the parties. The petitioner filed a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending before the District Judge, Ferozepur. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent moved an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein, vide order dated 26.05.2017, the Ld. District Judge has awarded Rs. 4000/- per month to the respondent and Rs. 3000/- per month to the minor child Ansh Gaur as maintenance pendente lite. Litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- have also been awarded to the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent is working as Principal of a private school and is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Besides, she is getting substantial amount as rental income, whereas, the petitioner is unemployed. 5. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The respondent in her application for maintenance has stated that her minor son Ansh Gaur is studying in Arya Model High School, Moga in Third Standard. A sum of Rs. 10000/- per month is being incurred to maintain him and for his eduction. She has taken rental accommodation at Rama Colony on a monthly rent of Rs. 5000/-. She has fairly stated that she has taken a job as a teacher on purely temporary basis at Rs. 19000/- per month in order to support herself and her child. It was alleged that the petitioner is working in a company namely Sport king and getting salary of Rs. 40000/- per month. 7. The Ld. Court has concluded that the petitioner appears to be intentionally concealing the fact of his avocation and income in order to evade his liability to maintain his wife and child. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the maintenance pendente lite has been awarded. 40000/- per month. 7. The Ld. Court has concluded that the petitioner appears to be intentionally concealing the fact of his avocation and income in order to evade his liability to maintain his wife and child. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the maintenance pendente lite has been awarded. The amount awarded is just the bare minimum that could have been awarded in these circumstances. I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order.