Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh Lamba vs Rabinder Kaur on 8 September, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.6048 of 2014
Date of decision: September 08, 2014
Gurmeet Singh Lamba
...Petitioner
Versus
Rabinder Kaur
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Gurmeet Singh has filed this revision petition against Rabinder Kaur respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 07.04.2014 and 22.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the respondent has been granted maintenance to the tune of `7000/- per month.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
A copy of the impugned order dated 07.04.2014 passed in the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been placed on the record. As per the averments in the application, marriage of the parties was solemnized at Chandigarh. After marriage, respondent indulged in many acts of domestic violence and a petition was filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and was accepted by learned JMIC, Amritsar and respondent (present petitioner) was directed to pay `7000/- per month VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.6048 of 2014 -2- as maintenance. The applicant has a minor daughter, who is in her custody and is being maintained by her at Amritsar. It is further stated in the application that respondent has filed a frivolous divorce petition to harass the applicant. In the earlier petition, application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and applicant was granted maintenance @ `5000/- per month and litigation expenses of `5000/- vide order dated 12.05.2009. Respondent did not pay amount of maintenance and withdrew earlier divorce petition on 27.07.2009. Again repeating the same allegation, the present divorce petition was filed. In the application, the respondent had claimed `33,000/- as litigation expenses and `10,000/- per month as maintenance pendentelite. It is also stated that respondent is a man of means and owns movable and immovable properties including a Mall at Chandigarh. He has rental income of `30,000/- per month therefrom whereas applicant has no source of income.
Respondent in reply to that application, stated that the applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands. It was also contended that the applicant has `3 lacs in her account in the shape of FDR and number of bank accounts and is getting interest of `8000/- per month. She is running tuition centre at her parental home and is earning `30,000/- per month and is also earning `12,000/- from her teaching job. She has a LIC police of `10,00,000/- in her name and she has sufficient amount to pay premium of said policy. She was doing a job of teacher at Amritsar and was getting `5000/- per month as salary. After marriage, she was also serving as Teacher. It is also VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.6048 of 2014 -3- stated in the reply that she is in receipt of maintenance for herself and her minor daughter @ `4500/- per month and received `2,10,000/- from respondent in Court on different occasions. It is further stated that she has filed maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also claimed maintenance under Domestic Violence Act.
Learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 07.04.2014 allowed the maintenance pendentelite @ `7000/- per month and further granted litigation expenses to the tune of `10,000/- from the respondent. In the order, it is held that in the case of Domestic Violence Act, learned Magistrate granted `7000/- per month to applicant and her minor daughter as maintenance vide order dated 02.02.2011. The petition for custody of minor child has been decided in favour of the present respondent by the Guardian Court. Guardian Judge also held that respondent (Gurmit Singh) is Mechanical Engineer, having commercial property, residing in house of 2000 sq. yards, owns SUV Quanto Car of `8.5 lacs, his father is retired Army Officer and mother is retired College Professor. The Court further held that it is unbelievable that a person having done B.Tech from a premier institute like IIT Bombay and who at the time of his marriage in the year 2006 was earning `4 lacs per annnum is now sitting idle at his home just because of litigation with the applicant. In that case, he could not own a car worth `8.05 lacs.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 07.04.2014 shows that the order is well reasoned and as per law and does not require interference from this Court and the same is upheld. VINEET GULATI 2014.09.19 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.6048 of 2014 -4-
As regarding the application filed by Gurmit Singh petitioner for canceling the maintenance order, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 22.07.2014 dismissed that application by observing that there is no ground to cancel the said order as prayed in the application. The Court referred to the order passed in revision petition No.2065 of 2012 by this Court against the order passed by learned JMIC Amritsar granting `7000/- as maintenance, in which this Court has held that Gurmit Singh is a man of possessing sufficient money and respondent on the other hand has been forced to take up some assignment in order to survive along with minor child. That revision petition was dismissed by this Court with costs of `50,000/-.
Keeping in view the findings given by this Court in the revision petition and the reasoning given by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar in order dated 22.07.2014, I find that the impugned order dated 22.07.2014 is also as per law and no illegality has been committed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar while passing the order.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the orders dated 07.04.2014 and 22.07.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar are correct and as per law and the same are upheld.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is dismissed.
September 08, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2014.09.19 12:57
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh