Civil Revision No. 1465 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1465 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 6.7.2009
Sandeep @ Sonu ... Petitioner
vs
Asha ... Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Husband has challenged the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the
learned court below whereby in an application filed under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), maintenance of Rs. 1,500/-
per month has been fixed.
Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the parties was
solemnized on 1.3.2006. As the parties could not settle in the matrimonial
home, a divorce petition was filed. During the pendency thereof, an
application for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act was filed in
which the impugned order was passed fixing the interim maintenance.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
respondent in the present case is not entitled to claim any maintenance from
the petitioner for the simple reason that she is admittedly living in adultery.
He has referred to the statement made by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in
FIR No. 391 dated 14.7.2007, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 365, 34
IPC with Police Station City Rohtak, where she admitted that besides
having illicit relations with others she had started living with Bijender as
husband-wife and was carrying two months pregnancy from the loins of
Bijender. Considering this fact, it would be totally unfair to direct the
petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent. Reliance was placed upon
Amarjit Kaur vs Harbhajan Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 492.
Civil Revision No. 1465 of 2009 (2)
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the marriage and the relationship of the parties as husband-
wife is not disputed. Once that is so, there was no scope for the court to
consider the issue regarding the respondent living in adultery at this stage as
it does not fall within the scope of Section 24 of the Act even though such a
specific provision has been made under Section 125 Cr.P.C. where the wife
living in adultery is not entitled to any maintenance under that provision. He
referred to Jugal Kishore and others vs Bhagwan Dass and others AIR
1990 Punjab & Haryana 82.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
As far as the issue raised in the present petition regarding the
entitlement of the respondent to maintenance on account of the fact that she
was living in adultery is concerned, I need not dilate thereon as other
admitted facts are sufficient for the disposal of the present petition, namely,
that the respondent is admittedly living with Bijender and having two
months pregnancy from his loins. Meaning thereby that Bijender is
maintaining the respondent and taking care of her daily needs. Section 24 of
the Act envisages payment of maintenance to either of the spouse in case it
is found that he/she is not able to maintain him/herself. Admittedly the
respondent is being maintained by Bijender with whom she is admittedly
living like wife. Once that is so, I do not find any reason to grant any
maintenance to the respondent.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed
by the learned court below is set aside to the extent of grant of maintenance.
The petition stands disposed of.
6.7.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge