NIRMAL SINGH Vs. HARMANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND -Nirmal Singh aggrieved by order dated 20.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order. Petitioner -husband has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act') against respondent -wife Harmanjit Kaur. The wife moved application Annexure P -1 under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself as well as for minor daughter of the parties, admittedly residing with the respondent -wife. The wife alleged that she has no source of income whereas the husband was employed with Rajasthan Electricity Board and also has agricultural land and his income is Rs. 50,000/ - per month. The husband, in his reply Annexure P -2, while admitting that he is employed in Rajasthan Electricity Board, denied other averments of the wife and pleaded that his carry home salary is Rs. 8,000/ - to Rs. 9,000/ - per month only.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court vide impugned order dated 20.07.2013 has awarded maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 3,000/ - per month for the wife and Rs. 2,000/ - per month for the minor daughter, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner reiterated that carry home salary of the husband is Rs. 9,000/ - per month approximately and, therefore, the amount of maintenance pendente lite, awarded by the trial Court, is excessive. The contention is completely meritless. As per photostat copy of the salary bill, shown by counsel for the petitioner -husband, gross salary of the petitioner is Rs. 13,816/ - per month. However, he is intentionally getting deducted heavy amount of Rs. 4,824/ - per month towards provident fund and GIS etc. which is accumulation of the petitioner himself. The same document also reveals that another employee having almost similar salary is having deduction of Rs. 1,461/ - per month only. It would depict that the deduction of Rs. 4,824/ - per month, from the salary of the petitioner, is not compulsory deduction but is voluntary higher deduction at the instance of the petitioner himself for his own benefit. Consequently, gross salary of the petitioner may be taken into consideration. Keeping in view the same, the maintenance pendente lite granted to the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, cannot be said to be excessive by any standards, particularly keeping in view the sky rocketing prices of daily necessities of life these days. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the petitioner -husband. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.