Monday, 22 February 2021

Whether Wife is entitled to get increased alimony after an increase in her husband’s salary?


 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner drawing my

attention to the salary certificate of the revision petitioner contended that

as per pay slip of the petitioner for the month of December, 2019, his net

carry home salary after all the deductions come out to Rs.92,175/-,

therefore, grant of maintenance @ Rs.28,000/- per month w.e.f. October,

2019 is not justified. However, I am not convinced by this contention. The

salary of petitioner having increased from Rs.95,000/- per month to

Rs.1,14,000/- per month in September, 2019 and there being increase in

rent paid by petitioner from 1.11.2019 onwards as observed by the trial

Court increase in maintenance by Rs.8,000/- when there is increase in

salary of revision petitioner by 19,000/-, is justified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR(F)-28-2021(O&M)

Date of decision:-5.2.2021

Varun Jagotta Vs  Diksha Kapur


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN



Case taken up through video conferencing.

Petitioner Varun Jagotta son of Sh.Bioan Jagotta has filed the

instant revision petition against his wife Diksha Kapur, feeling aggrieved

by the order dated 5.3.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,

Panchkula, allowing application for grant of interim maintenance in

petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by his wife Diksha against him

and granting interim maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the date

of filing of application till September, 2019 and thereafter @ Rs.28,000/-

per month.

The revisionist is basically aggrieved by the portion of the

impugned order granting maintenance @ Rs.28,000/- per month to

applicant/wife w.e.f. October, 2019 onwards.


I have heard learned counsel for the revision/petitioner

besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the

revision petition.

The concluding para of the impugned order is very relevant

for the purpose of decision of the present controversy and is being

reproduced as under:

12. In the light of aforesaid discussions and taking note of

the fact that there has been increase in the salary of the

respondent from Rs.95,000/- per month to Rs.1,14,000/- per

month in September, 2019 and there has been increase in

rent being paid by the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per

month from 01.11.2019 onwards, this Court is of the

considered opinion that if the petitioner is awarded a sum

of Rs.20,000/- per month by way of interim mainteannce

from the date of filing the application (on 03.10.2018) till

September, 2019 and henceforth, at the rate of Rs.28,000/-

per month, it would suffice the purpose and ends of justice

would be met. The application in hand stands allowed

accordingly in aforesaid terms. Any amount paid by the

respondent of his own or in pursuance of any order passed

by any Court of competent jurisdiction in any proceedings,

during the pendency of the application and thereafter, the

main petition or in any other proceedings at any stage, shall

be adjustable towards the aforesaid amount. It is made clear

that the observations made herein before shall have no

bearing on the merits of the main case.

It needs to be mentioned here that the present revision

petitioner Varun Jagotta has filed a petition for divorce against his wife

Diksha Kapur in which the latter had moved an application under Section

24 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was accepted by the trial Court and

maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.10,000/- was granted to her. However,

when that order was challenged in this Court by the aggrieved wife, the

amount was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month vide order dated 8.5.2019

passed in CR No.1169-2019. The said order has become final between

the parties. Therefore, as far as grant of interim maintenance to the wife

@ Rs.20,000/- per month, the revision petitioner cannot challenge the

same now.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner drawing my

attention to the salary certificate of the revision petitioner contended that

as per pay slip of the petitioner for the month of December, 2019, his net

carry home salary after all the deductions come out to Rs.92,175/-,

therefore, grant of maintenance @ Rs.28,000/- per month w.e.f. October,

2019 is not justified. However, I am not convinced by this contention. The

salary of petitioner having increased from Rs.95,000/- per month to

Rs.1,14,000/- per month in September, 2019 and there being increase in

rent paid by petitioner from 1.11.2019 onwards as observed by the trial

Court increase in maintenance by Rs.8,000/- when there is increase in

salary of revision petitioner by 19,000/-, is justified.

I find that the impugned order is detailed and well reasoned.

The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity

apparent on the face of the order passed by a Court below or the same is

perverse and not otherwise. The impugned order does not appear to be

suffering from any illegality or infirmity much less apparent on the face

thereof. The order is certainly not perverse or passed in an arbitrary

manner. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order by way of

exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands

dismissed.

5.2.2021 (H.S.MADAAN)



Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment