HARINDER KUMAR Vs. RINKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition, at the instance of the petitioner husband, is directed against the impugned order dtd. 9/2/2017, whereby in a divorce petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted by the petitioner-husband against his wife, ad interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000.00 has been awarded from the date of fling of the application i.e. 17/12/2015 and Rs.2,200.00 as litigation expenses.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7/2/2011 and a female child was born on 14/5/2012. Owing to the differences between the parties, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home on 10/5/2013 and the divorce petition (Annexure P-1) under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed on 7/7/2015, wherein the respondent-wife submitted an application dtd. 17/12/2015 for maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.25,000.00 on the premise that the petitioner is practising as Advocate. The trial Court awarded the maintenance @ Rs.10,000.00, which is on higher side, for, the petitioner was junior to Sh. Subhash Grover, Advocate and unable to pay the maintenance as no evidence has been placed on record that he was earning Rs.50,000.00 per month. He is totally new entrant and even has not filed a single case, at the time when the case was filed, except his own case, therefore, the amount was enormous. The wife has already filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act at Pataudi as well as under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even an FIR under Sec. 498-A of Cr.P.C., has been registered at District Alwar, Rajasthan, which has seriously affected his career. The reference of the revenue record regarding agricultural land is wholly preposterous as father of the petitioner has two sons and three daughters.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that the impugned order, under challenge, is perfectly legal and justified. The petitioner belongs to the rich family and the maintenance pendente lite has been awarded as per the status of the parties. The lawyer cannot be said to be earning at least minimum wages, sought to be projected in the petition, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the present revision petition.