RAJINDER SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Singh (husband) filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against his wife Rajinder Kaur for restitution of conjugal rights in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur.

(2.) WIFE made application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby she claimed maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month. She claimed Rs. 5,000/- each for each of the two children. In addition, she prayed for the grant of Rs. 50,000/- to her as expenses of proceedings. It was stated by her that she does not own property movable or immovable except that she draws salary in the sum of Rs. 7400/- per month as she is Mistress in Govt. Senior Secondary School, Dhanas. A plot of 8 marla was allotted to her in instalments which also gives her some income. It is stated that she herself is bringing up her two children aged 6 years and 3 and half years respectively. Her husband is not contributing any money towards their maintenance though he has substantial income, that is salary to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month. He is running a private clinic in village Amargarh, District Sangrur and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month. He owns immovable property at village Amargarh which also gives him income. He has sold house at Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- which amount is yielding some interest to him.

(3.) THERE is no reason to allow this revision filed by Rajinder Singh because as father it is his duty to maintain his children. It is he who fathered these children and brought them forth into this world. He is gainfully employed inasmuch as he is posted in PCMS with the State of Punjab. He is thus a gazetted officer. Doctors are quite handsomely paid in Punjab inasmuch as besides salary, they are getting non-practising allowance and other allowances also. If wife says that he is getting Rs. 15,000/- per month, I do not think she is exaggerating. Even otherwise, only Rs. 1,000/- per child has been awarded which by no means, can be said to be on the higher side. She has been awarded only Rs. 2,000/- as expenses of litigation which too cannot be said to be on the higher side. This revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel for Rs. 2,000/-. Revision dismissed.