NO interim maint for wife earning 50000 pm and NO proof of husband earnings ; husb out of job ! P&H HC ; try and use this in your cases !!!!
Notes
************
* wife is earning rs 30000 + rental , in all Rs 50000 pm
* claims husband is earnning in lakhs
* husband says he has NO job
* NO proof of husband having employement
* wife's INTERIm maint U/S 24 HMA refused both by lower court and by HC
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Honey Randhawa vs Jasbir S. Randhawa on 22 February, 2012
CR No.5307 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL REVISION NO.5307 OF 2011
DATE OF DECISION: FABRUARY 22, 2012
Honey Randhawa .... Petitioner
Versus
Jasbir S. Randhawa .... Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
****
PRESENT: Ms. Jatinder Jit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for respondent.
****
L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Honey Randhawa (wife) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.04.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon thereby dismissing application moved by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) claiming maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses during pendency of divorce petition filed by respondent- husband-Jasbir S. Randhawa under Section 13 of the Act. The petitioner herself alleged that she has income of a little over Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) per month whereas she has to spend Rs.2,00,000/- per month on education of her younger daughter in United States. It was also alleged that respondent-husband is earning several lacs of rupees and also has earning capacity. He also has property worth crores of rupees. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/
Respondent alleged that he has no income whereas the petitioner wife has properties and has lot of income including salary and rental income. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the application of wife under Section 24 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, wife has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
There is no material on record to depict that the respondent- husband has any income. Respondent is present in the Court and states that he is out of job. In fact, respondent had also filed application under Section 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance from the petitioner-wife but the said application was also dismissed by the Family Court vide separate order of even date Annexure P-15. On the other hand, the petitioner-wife herself admitted that she was getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month besides rental income of Rs.21,800/- per month. In these circumstances, application moved by the wife has been rightly dismissed by the Family Court. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has bank accounts as detailed in paragraph 19(c) of the grounds of revision petition. However, the amount lying in the said bank accounts has not been stated nor there is any material on record to depict that the respondent-husband has any income. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is no longer in service. However, there is no material on record to depict that the petitioner is no longer in service. Moreover, even then petitioner has rental income of Rs.21,800/- per month whereas there is no material to depict that the CR No.5307 of 2011 -3- respondent has any income at all. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of Family Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(L. N. MITTAL)
JUDGE
22.02.2012
'raj'
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment