KANWARJIT SINGH KANG Vs. OPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-wife, who has been residing in U. S. A. prior to her marriage and while still staying there she is claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses against the petitioner- husband (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') in a proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed at the instance of latter, wherein, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 4.3.2010, awarded her maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month; further a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses and the petitioner was also to bear her travelling expenses from U. S. A. The petitioner has assailed the said order. The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 16.3.2008. It has been alleged that the petitioner is a resident of India whereas the respondent is settled in U. S. A. and is a green card holder. She is residing with sister and mother, and is pursuing her education there. After spending a few days with the respondent, she had left for U. S. A. and never came back thereafter, except on the Bhog ceremony performed on the death of the petitioner's brother that too for few months. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a divorce petition.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition, instead of attending the court personally the respondent through her counsel moved an application for maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses by levelling the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry on the part of the petitioner and further alleged that she is pursuing her four years diploma in accounts from Lone Star College, Kingwood, USA and her entire education expenses are borne by her parents. She is residing in U. S. A. and it is practically impossible for he to contest the petition from such a long distance, as such, she needs money to come to India. The petitioner is a big transporter and is earning more than Rs. 5,00,000/- per annum besides, he has also rental income in lacs.

(3.) In reply, the petitioner submitted that it was not the respondent who was treated with cruelly but the shoe lies on the other leg. She deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause and excuse with an intention to end the matrimonial ties forever. She is earning a lot as she is working in a general store. She is tax payer and has social security cover of U. S. A. Government but has not intentionally disclosed the same as well as her tax status. It was further asserted that the respondent has been claiming that he was no match for her. He denied the other allegations including the income.