C.R No. 4884 of 2010 · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Mandeep Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated

20.5.2010 declined to grant maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the petitioner and her minor child during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a doctor and is working on contract basis with Zila Parishad. It is further averred that the respondent being the husband is legally bound to maintain her as well as her minor child. The respondent is a Major in the army and is earning `80,000/- per month. Thus, she has claimed maintenance for herself as well as for her minor child besides the litigation expenses. In reply to the petition the respondent denied all the allegations and further submitted that the petitioner being a doctor has been drawing salary of `30,000/- per month and her carry home salary is `28,000/- per month, therefore, the petitioner having sufficient means to maintain herself and the minor child.

Arguments heard. Having examined the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the petitioner being the doctor, drawing handsome salary `28000/- per month could maintain herself. This beneficial provision of maintenance has been introduced by the legislation with a view to protect the poor and deserted ladies who are unable to maintain themselves and Civil Revision No. 4884 of 2010 -2- *** unable to bear the litigation expenses and as such the said provision is not attracted to the case of the petitioner. However, to maintain the child is not the sole liability of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent is also bound to maintain the child with regard to his daily needs i.e. education, health, clothes etc. Thus, in the present circumstances of the case, though the respondent is not bound to maintain his wife but he is to maintain his minor child as per the status of the family who is in the custody of the petitioner.

The law cited by the trial court in the impugned order, delivered in case Ram Lal vs. Surinder Kaur 1995 (1) P.L.R. 527 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also not disputed that the petitioner also needs some litigation expenses. The Apex Court had also not only granted maintenance but enhanced the maintenance of the minor child in case Anu Kaul vs. Rajeev Kaul 2009 (2) Apex Court Judgments 423 (SC). In the result, this petition is partly accepted with the modification in the impugned order that the respondent would pay a sum of `5500/- per month for the minor which would be subject to the adjustment against the amount already received by the minor under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is also noticed that the petitioner being a resident of Nawan Shahar has to visit Delhi in order to attend the matrimonial proceedings, she is also to pay the counsel fee and bear the other expenses, therefore, she would be entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of `50,000/- only. March 03, 2011 deepak (A.N. Jindal) Judge