Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saurabh Gupta vs Smt. Isha Gupta on 21 May, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.3076 OF 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 21st MAY 2012
Saurabh Gupta
.... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Isha Gupta
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.13495-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
CIVIL REVISION NO.3076 OF 2012 Saurabh Gupta has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure assailing order dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rohtak thereby disposing of application filed by respondent-Isha Gupta under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act).
Petitioner has filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent. It is undisputed that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.05.2010 and out of the wedlock, a minor son was born on 04.02.2011.
The respondent-wife alleged in her application Annexure P-4 under Section 24 of the Act that she has no source of income to maintain herself and her minor son living with her whereas the petitioner-husband is earning about `6,00,000/- per annum from his ancestral business. CR No.3076 of 2012(O&M) -2-
The petitioner-husband in his reply Annexure P-5 rather made counter claim under Section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance from the wife alleging that the wife has income of not less than `45,000/- per month from tuitions and moveable and immoveable properties. Earlier she was serving in a company. The husband alleged that he is working as supervisor in a factory getting `5,299/- per month as net salary.
The wife by filing rejoinder controverted the averments made by the husband.
Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent `4,000/- as maintenance pendente lite from the date of filing application and `5,000/- as litigation expenses. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that total salary of the petitioner is `6,000/- per month and carry home salary is `5,299/- per month as per salary certificate Annexure P-7 and, therefore, interim maintenance granted by the trial court is excessive. It was also pleaded that notice may be issued in the revision petition so that parties may make efforts for amicable settlement.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. Even an unskilled casual worker earns much more than `6,000/- per month. Consequently salary certificate depicting that the gross salary of the petitioner is `6,000/- per month and his carry home salary is `5,299/- pm cannot be taken as face value. The petitioner rather admitted that his father is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Bhure Mal Bishan Sarup whereas his uncle Vinod Kumar is carrying on business under CR No.3076 of 2012(O&M) -3- the name and style of M/s. Bhure Mal Sadhu Ram as proprietors thereof. It would rather depict that the petitioner has some family business which might be running in the records by depicting his father and uncle as proprietors. There was also another business M/s. Ganpati Baan Industries of which value added tax lincece and Central Sales Tax licence appears to have been got cancelled. There is nothing on record to depict that the respondent-wife has any income. It is undisputed that minor son of the parties is residing with the respondent-wife. Keeping in view all the circumstances, it cannot be said that maintenance pendente lite @ `4,000/- per month granted by the trial Court is excessive so as to warrant reduction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
As regards efforts for amiable settlement, the same may be made in the trial Court itself. Both the parties are residents of Rohtak, which is at a distance of 240 kilometers from Chandigarh. It would not be advisable to issue notice of motion to bring the parties to Chandigarh from such a long distance for making efforts for amicable settlement. Event otherwise, the petitioner does not appear to be serious for efforts of amicable settlement because the petitioner in his reply Annexure P-5 made counter-claim for maintenance pendente lite from the wife. Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that petitioner's mother had also moved anticipatory bail petition in criminal case lodged by respondent wherein also plea for amicable settlement was made. However, nothing appears to have been done after anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner's mother.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
21st May, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE