Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jyoti Burmi @ Jyoti Sharda vs Anusandeep Burmi on 1 March, 2012
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010
Date of decision : March 01, 2012
Jyoti Burmi @ Jyoti Sharda
....Petitioner
versus
Anusandeep Burmi
....Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Wife Jyoti Burmi @ Jyoti Sharda has filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 7.8.2010, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Rupnagar thereby disposing of application moved by petitioner herein under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Respondent-husband Anusandeep Burmi has filed divorce petition against the petitioner-wife. During pendency of the said petition, Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010 -2- the wife moved application Annexure P/1 claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses for herself as well as for minor son of the parties residing with the wife.
Respondent - husband opposed application by filing reply Annexure P/2.
Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 directed the husband to pay Rs 3000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite to the wife from the date of filing of application Annexure P/1 and also to pay Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed this petition seeking enhancement of the maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The petitioner in her application Annexure P/1 very cleverly concealed her own income. In paragraph 3 of the application, she alleged that she has no independent income to maintain herself. In paragraph 4 of the application, the wife alleged that she has to demand money from her nears and dears to satisfy daily needs of herself and her minor son. It was also alleged that she is not in a position to spare time for her job although earlier she used to do part time job in Canada for meager salary. However, the wife did not state if she had any income at the time of filing of the Civil Revision No. 7407 of 2010 -3- application and if so how much income. The respondent - husband in his reply pleaded that the wife was earning salary of more than 1,20,000/- per month and the minor son is getting aid from Canadian Government @ 625 Canadian dollars per month besides free medical aid and free education. In response thereto only, the wife filed affidavit Annexure P/3 in the trial court stating that her net income from all sources is about 19,500 Canadian dollars per annum. Besides it, the minor son is getting 100 dollars per month as child tax benefit from the Canadian Government. Respondent - husband is now in India. His income tax return for the assessment year 2008-09 was allegedly placed on record of the trial court depicting his income to be Rs 4,36,570/- for one year i.e. approximately Rs 36,000/- per month. Keeping in view the income of the petitioner herself as well as income of the respondent - husband, no interference is called for in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed as meritless.
( L.N. Mittal )
March 01, 2012 Judge
'dalbir'