Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Estranged Wife's Plea For Enhanced Maintenance, Says Not Far Fetched To Assume Adult Sons Will Support Her

Update: 2024-06-12 11:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea for enhancement of Rs.7,500 monthly maintenance amount granted to a woman by the trial court, who has been living separately from her husband.Justice Nidhi Gupta noted, "it has...been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the two sons of the parties had attained majority and are currently living with the petitioner. It...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the plea for enhancement of Rs.7,500 monthly maintenance amount granted to a woman by the trial court, who has been living separately from her husband.

Justice Nidhi Gupta noted, "it has...been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the two sons of the parties had attained majority and are currently living with the petitioner. It would not be far-fetched to assume that the sons of the petitioner would also be supporting her."

The petitioner had submitted that her husband is working as a driver in army and, earning at least Rs.90,000 per month. Accordingly, the final maintenance of only Rs.7,500 per month as granted to her is on the lower side.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "due to matrimonial differences, the parties have been living separately since 26.12.2008. However, petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner only on 04.01.2019."

On a Court query, as to how the petitioner was maintaining herself from 26.12.2008 to 04.01.2019, the counsel for the petitioner had no reply, it added.

Considering that the couple has two major sons who are living with the petitioner, the Court refused to enhance the maintenance.

Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News