Home > Judgement > Multiple maintenance not allowed Panjab_and_Haryana_2

Multiple maintenance not allowed Panjab_and_Haryana_2

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5775 of 2008
Date of decision : January 20, 2010
Smt. Sonia
….Petitioner
versus
Om Parkash
….Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. GP Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. JS Saneta, Advocate,
for the respondent
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Smt. Sonia has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India assailing order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, whereby application moved by the
petitioner herein under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short,
the Act) claiming maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses from the
respondent-husband Om Parkash during pendency of divorce petition filed by
respondent herein against the petitioner under section 13 of the Act, has been
disposed of.
The petitioner herein claimed litigation expenses and maintenance
for herself as well as for the minor son Jonny residing with her. Civil Revision
No. 5775 of 2008 -2- The application was resisted by the respondent-husband
alleging that the petitioner had already received Rs 1,60,000/- as maintenance
for herself as well as for the minor child pursuant to compromise effected
between the parties and thereupon petition under section 13-B of the Act had
been filed but subsequently the petitioner herein withdrew her consent for
divorce by mutual consent and therefore, the said petition under section 13-B
of the Act was dismissed. Learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order
Annexure P/2 rejected the prayer of the petitioner herein for maintenance
pendente-lite on the ground that she had already received Rs 1,60,000/- as per
compromise between the parties but the respondent-husband has been directed to pay Rs 5500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner-wife. I have heard
learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the
amount of Rs 1,60,000/- which was payable to the petitioner under the
compromise was given to one Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala to be paid to the
petitioner herein after passing of decree of divorce and since petition under
section 13-B of the Act was dismissed, the said amount was paid by Jai Bhagwan alias Dayal to the respondent-husband and not to the petitioner. Reference has been made to affidavit of Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala filed in the instant revision petition. It was pointed out that the husband while appearing as
witness in petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short, Cr.P.C.) admitted that the amount of Rs 1,60,000/- had been kept with
Jai Bhagwan alias Dayala and was to be paid to the petitioner-wife after grant
of divorce.
Civil Revision No. 5775 of 2008 -3- On the other hand, learned counsel for
the respondent contended that the petitioner-wife furnished affidavit with
petition under section 13-B of the Act admitting to have received amount of Rs
1,60,000/- as per compromise. I need not to go into aforesaid contentions
raised by learned counsel for the parties because in petition under section 125
Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner-wife and minor son Jonny, they have been
granted Rs 750/- per month each as maintenance payable by the respondent-
husband vide order dated 17.3.2009. The said order has attained finality.
Consequently, the petitioner-wife cannot be granted maintenance pendente-lite in the instant proceedings when she had already been awarded maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The quantum of maintenance has also been assessed on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The petitioner cannot get double maintenance for the same period. Consequently, for this reason the impugned order cannot be set aside. As regards litigation expenses, learned Additional District Judge has already granted Rs 5500/- as litigation expenses to the petitioner- wife.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant revision
petition which is accordingly dismissed.
( L.N. Mittal )
January 20, 2010 Judge ‘tiwana’

Advertisements
Categories: Judgement
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: