PREETI BANSAL Vs. AKASH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 25th September, 1997, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge, has held that since the petitioner-wife was earning Rs. 2200/- per month, the said amount was sufficient for her maintenance and as such, no maintenance allowance under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be allowed during the pendency of the case. Notice of motion of this petition was issued to the respondent.

(2.) MR . Chadha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as per the income-tax return submitted by the respondent- husband, the annual income of the respondent for the year 1995-96 is Rs. 1,04,312/-. He also submitted that in reply to the interrogatories, the respondent-husband admitted that the firm of which he was partner was maintaining two cars. He further submitted that in terms of the law laid down by this court, the wife under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be declined maintenance simply on the ground that she was earning some amount. He submitted that 1/3rd of the aggregate income of the husband and wife less wife's income, was permissible to the wife under Section 24 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Smt. Usha v. Sudhir Kumar Suneja, 1975 HLR 1 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Harsharan Singh v. Tejinder Kaur, 1975 HLR 252. He also submitted that while granting the maintenance allowance, it should be ensured that the wife should be able to live in a manner commensurate with her social status and the social status of her husband. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Devinder Kaur v. Kanwaljit Singh, 1976 HLR 96.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case. In the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court as under :