GURMINDER SINGH Vs. AMRITA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed by the husband-petitioner challenging the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mohali, thereby allowing the application moved by the wife-respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the husband-petitioner herein to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the applicant-wife from the date of application as maintenance pendente-lite and also to pay Rs.6600/- towards litigation expenses.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although the gross salary of the petitionerhusband is Rs.30,000/- per month, however, after deductions of PPF, it comes to Rs.25,586/- per month and petitionerhusband is paying installments amounting to Rs.5450/- per month and is also paying rent of the accommodation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month and paying insurance premium amounting to Rs.4,000/- per month, hence, he is getting only Rs.12,500/- per month, thus, the petitioner - husband is not in a position to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the wiferespondent. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that wife-respondent is a well educated lady and was earlier employed as Deputy Manager with HDFC Bank and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and now also she is doing some private job earning handsome amount. It is further argued that the car purchased by the husbandpetitioner from his savings i.e. Hyundai I-10 is with the respondent - wife and is in her custody and she is illegally using the same and FDRs to the tune of Rs. three lacs drawn in the name of the respondent - wife out of the amount withdrawn from the account of the petitioner, is in the custody of the wife.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent states that at present, wife-respondent is not doing any job and although FDRs of Rs.three lacs made by the petitioner is in the custody of the wife, however, it is the duty of the husband - petitioner to pay maintenance as per the status of the family to the wife as well as to the minor child who is with the wife. Having considered totality of the circumstances and after taking consideration that there is a cut off PPF from the salary of the petitioner and he is paying the house rent, hence, I find that total income would be approximately Rs.22,000/- per month and the petitioner - husband cannot take shelter of the payment of the insurance policy and loan amount. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that instead of Rs.15,000/- per month maintenance pendente-lite should be at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. The impugned order shall stand modified to that extent.