Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Arora vs Karuna @ Monika Arora on 14 November, 2014
CR-7712-2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-7712-2014
Date of decision: 14.11.2014
Sanjay Arora
..... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Karuna @ Monika Arora
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2014 (Annexure P-1) whereby the Matrimonial Court, Amritsar, has fixed an amount of ` 25,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and ` 10,000/- towards litigation expenses in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), which was filed during the pendency of petition for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Act, instituted by the petitioner. The divorce was claimed on the ground of cruelty.
2. The respondent in the application under Section 24 of the Act stated that annual income of the petitioner was more than RISHU KATARIA 2014.11.19 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-7712-2014 -2- ` 44,44,350/- as per the income-tax return for the assessment year 2013-
14. The petitioner in response to the application stated that respondent was herself running a boutique and was earning ` 20,000/- per month. The petitioner categorically denied that he was earning more than ` 44 lacs per annum. He stated himself to be merely working as a labourer. Earlier he was in the jute business which has been closed. The petitioner claimed that he was working as an employee of M/s Mohan Lal Dwarka Dheesh and getting salary of ` 15,500/- as salary per month.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and the paper-book.
4. As per copy of the income-tax return for the assessment year 2013-14, the annual income of the petitioner was shown as ` 44,44,350/-. Learned Matrimonial Court refused to place reliance upon the certificate issued by M/s Mohan Lal Dwarka Dheesh a proprietorship concern, on the ground that the same appears to be a procured document. The petitioner even did not explain his income which was more than ` 44 lacs per annum as mentioned in the income-tax return. The petitioner was unable to support the contention that respondent was earning ` 20,000/- per month by running a boutique, especially when he raised a plea against the respondent that she is a drug addict.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent was admitted in the hospital for drug de-addiction but that is not a ground at all for reducing the amount of maintenance fixed by the Matrimonial Court. The petitioner tried to explain in the grounds of revision that jute business of the petitioner suffered a major set back. At least with annual RISHU KATARIA 2014.11.19 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR-7712-2014 -3- income of more than ` 44 lacs for the assessment year 2013-2014 there must have been huge savings of the petitioner in various accounts. The amount fixed by the learned Matrimonial Court does not seem to be on the higher side. There is nothing on record to prima facie prove that amount of interim maintenance and litigation expenses awarded by the learned Matrimonial Court is illegal or by ignoring any material on record of the lower Court.
6. Taking into account the huge income of the petitioner borne out from the income-tax return, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The instant revision is without merits and thus dismissed.
November 14, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE
RISHU KATARIA
2014.11.19 16:26
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document