Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Gupta vs Shelly Gupta And Others on 12 March, 2026
ANJAL GUPTA CR-627-2024(O&M) 2026:PHHG 038623 : feta -]- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-627-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 12.03.2026 Amit Gupta ...Petitioner V/s Shelly Gupta and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhijeet Partap Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. 3k 2k 3 VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate I* Class, Ludhiana (Annexure P-5) in COMA/2169/2019 titled as 'Shelly Gupta Versus Amit Gupta and others', vide which maintenance was awarded to the respondent-wife @ Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till its disposal. Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the maintenance was enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month.
2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that initially, a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'HMA Act') was instituted by the petitioner-husband. During the pendency of the said petition, vide order dated 03.02.2022, the Family Court concerned, awarded maintenance pendente lite under Sections 24 of the HMA @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and Rs.10,000/- to the minor child under Section 26 of HMA. However, subsequently, the petition under 2026.03.17 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of th is document CR-627-2024(O&M) 2026:PHHG 038623 :
feta -2- : Section 13 of HMA is stated to have been withdrawn. A petition under Section 6 read with Section 12, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as "the D.V. Act") was instituted by the respondent-wife. The said petition was opposed by way of a written statement (Annexure P-3).
3. An application for the grant of interim relief was also filed which was disposed of by the Court of Judicial Magistrate I* Class, Ludhiana, vide order dated 19.09.2022 (Annexure P-5). By way of the said order, maintenance of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid by the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the petition till its disposal. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-wife instituted an appeal which was decided by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 02.06.2023. By way of the said order, considering the fact that in the petition filed under Section 13 of HMA, a sum of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.10,000/- for the respondent-wife and Rs.10,000/- for the minor child), had been awarded alongwith Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate I* Class Ludhiana, under the provisions of D.V. Act, awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant revision petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana erred in enhancing the maintenance to Rs.30,000/- per month by considering Rs.20,000/- awarded under Section 24 & 26 of HMA in the petition filed under Section 13 HMA. He further submits that as per the affidavit submitted by the petitioner- husband and other documents produced on record including Income Tax Returns (ITR), the monthly income of the petitioner-husband was not more ania cupratuan Rs.12,000/- per month and, therefore, under the circumstances, there was 2026.03.17 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document ANJAL GUPTA CR-627-2024(O&M)
-3- Be ee no occasion for the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent-wife is residing in the house of brother of the petitioner-husband and the entire electricity expenses, as also the grocery expenses are being borne by the petitioner-husband and his brother. Learned counsel prays that under the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and that maintenance of Rs.30,000/-per month is not at all on the excessive side. He further submits that the petitioner-husband is well settled in life and runs a departmental store. He also submits that after the dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner-husband alienated a number of properties.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. If one goes through the documents produced on record, it emerges that the petitioner furnished an affidavit stating that his monthly income was Rs.12,000/- per month. Income Tax Returns (ITR) were also produced which depicted primarily the same income. It is an admitted fact that from the wedlock, a minor son was born, who is living with the mother. The said child is stated to be a special child, though, there is no evidence on the file to this effect. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the mother and child are fending for themselves, with the mother being unemployed. It is not unknown that in matrimonial matters, claims and defences are often exaggerated. The fact also remains that the petitioner is an able bodied man, who had solemnized marriage with the respondent and from the wedlock, a minor son was born. 2026.03.17 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of th is document CR-627-2024(O&M) 2026:PHHC:036823 3 me
8. It has also come on record that the respondent-wife is living in a -4- portion of the house owned by the brother of the petitioner-husband. As to whether grocery expenses are being borne by the petitioner or his brother or not, cannot be determined at this stage and these assertions shall be decided during the course of evidence. The fact also remains that to fend for himself, the petitioner-husband would also need a reasonable amount to sustain.
9. The approach adopted by the Court of Additional Judge, Ludhiana while adding a Rs.20,000/- awarded under Sections 24 and 26 HMA does not appear to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The compensation should have been assessed keeping in view the claims of respective parties. Once the petition under Section 13 of HMA had been withdrawn, though, may be to avoid payment of maintenance, the said maintenance could not have been added in the maintenance payable under the D.V. Act.
10. Having considered the matter from all angles, this Court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be required to be paid by the petitioner-husband to the respondent-wife and their son i.e. Rs.7500/- to each of them per month during the pendency of the petition under D.V. Act. This amount shall be adjustable, in accordance with law, in case any other maintenance is fixed. The said amount shall be payable from the date of institution of the petition under D.V. Acct till the date of payment. The balance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month (in addition to Rs.10,000 already assessed by the trial Court) shall be payable from the date of institution of the petition under the D.V. Act till the date of payment.
11. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
ANJAL GUPTA 2026.03.17 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentANJAL GUPTA CR-627-2024(O&M) 2026:PHHC:038823 §
-5- Re Syne z
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 12.03.2026 Anjal Whether speaking/reasoned_: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 2026.03.17 18:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document