C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 3650 of 2009
Date of Decision: July 6, 2009
Smt.Rajinder Kaur
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Yadwinder Singh
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:- Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is wife of respondent. Her application under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short ‘the Act’), is pending before the
Civil Judge (Senior Division). Vide impugned order dated May 29, 2009,
her application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs.10000/- as litigation
expenses and a sum of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance of the minor
daughter has been dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife is entitled to
the maintenance pendente lite for the minor child under the provisions of
C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [2]
Section 24 of the Act. The Lower Court has erred in not granting any
maintenance pendente lite for the child. Counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgment of Anu Kaul Vs. Rajeev Kaul, 2009 (2) CCC 545 (SC),
wherein the amount of Rs.10000/- granted as interim maintenance to the
wife who was also looking after the minor child by the High Court, was
enhanced by the Apex Court taking into consideration the exorbitant fee
structure and cost of living etc.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion
that no prejudice has been caused to the rights of the child to claim
maintenance through her natural guardian under the other provisions of law
as such no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The
lower Court has not given any reason for denying litigation expenses to the
petitioner which had been claimed to the extent of Rss.10000/-. Since the
petitioner is in Government service and her earnings are equivalent to the
earnings of her husband, she may not be entitled to any interim maintenance
under Section 24 of the Act but litigation expenses should not have been
denied by the trial Court.
This petition is disposed of by modifying the order dated May
29, 2009 directing that the petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs.10000/-
as claimed by her as litigation expenses. So far as the rights of the minor
child of the petitioner are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to avail
other alternative remedies available to her to get the maintenance for the
minor which is being maintained by the petitioner.
C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [3]
Counsel for the petitioner insists that in view of the judgment
of Rajinder Singh Vs. Rajinder Kaur, 2002 (1) CCC 170 (P&H), the
minor children can be awarded maintenance pendente lite while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act.
I have considered the said judgment and I am of the opinion
that it has not been laid down as principle on the basis of interpretation of
Section 24 of the Act that minor children are entitled to maintenance
pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. It is not out of place to observe
here that the spouse who is maintaining the minor child may raise before the
Court of competent jurisdiction the factors entitling her/ him to get
maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. The maintenance of
minor children by that spouse may be one of the factors or ground for
getting the interim maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act.
In the present case as it has not been pleaded in detail in application under
Section 24 of the Act the various heads under which the minor child wanted
independent maintenance as such rights of the child cannot be prejudiced in
any manner by deciding her rights in an application under Section 24 of the
Act as the child is independently entitled to maintenance under other
provisions by filing a petition through her natural guardian. As the rights of
the minor child have not been considered as such no prejudice seems to
have been caused to the minor child.
Dismissed.
July 6, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE