Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh vs Paramjit Kaur on 27 September, 2012
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 3507 of 2012
Date of decision: 27th September, 2012
Swaran Singh
....... Petitioner
versus
Paramjit Kaur
....... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present: None for the petitioner.
Ms. Paramjit Kaur, respondent
in person.
L.N.Mittal, J.(Oral)
Husband Swaran Singh petitioner has filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') against wife Paramjit Kaur/respondent. During pendency of the said petition, respondent and Hitesh Kumari minor daughter of the parties filed application (Annexure P-1) under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite for both of them alongwith litigation expenses. The husband by filing reply (Annexure P-2) resisted the said application.
Learned trial court vide order dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) allowed maintenance pendente lite to the wife @ `1200/- per month and to the minor daughter @ ` 800/- per month from the date of filing the application along with ` 1500/- as litigation expenses. Feeling aggrieved, husband has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-3). Civil Revision No. 3507 of 2012 -2-
None is appearing for the petitioner. Respondent has appeared in person.
I have heard the respondent and perused the case file. Vide statement dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-4), wife had withdrawn her application qua minor daughter Hitesh Kumari because she is residing with her father i.e. Swaran Singh-Petitioner. In spite thereof, the trial court vide impugned order dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) has awarded maintenance pendente lite to the minor daughter also. This part of impugned order is, therefore, patently, perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed partly. Impugned order dated 12.03.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court is modified and set aside to the extent of granting maintenance pendente lite of ` 800/- per month for minor daughter Hitesh Kumari. The said order is upheld regarding maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses awarded to the respondent wife.
Presiding officer of the trial court is advised to be careful.
[L.N.MITTAL] JUDGE 27th September, 2012 Shivani Kaushik