AMARJIT KAUR Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
October 23,2002
AMARJIT KAUR
Appellant
VERSUS
HARBHAJAN SINGH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GOUTAM KUNDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]DWARIKA PRASAD SATPATHY VS. BIDYUT PRAVA DIXIT [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
PAKA PADMAVATHI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]NIVEDITA JAIN VS. SANDEEP JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-90] [REFERRED TO]
TARLOCHAN SINGH VS. MOHINDER KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI VS. PRABU [LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BALA SHARMA VS. BHUPESH KUMAR VISHWAKARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA W/O ABHISHEK KOTHARI VS. ABHISHEK S/O GOVINDLAL KOTHARI [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-262] [REFERRED TO]
B VANDANA KUMARI VS. P PRAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
W VS. H & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
CHINMOY DUTTA VS. PATRALEKHA DUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJUL ISLAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
ALPANA KUMARI VS. UJJWL KUMAR DUTTA [LAWS(PAT)-2007-5-171] [REFERRED]
R VASU VS. MANJULA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHAN @ LAXMAN VS. ANKITA LAXMAN KALE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-11-137] [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL S/O WASUDEO BADWAIK VS. SAU. LATA W/O NANDLAL BADWAIK [LAWS(BOM)-2018-7-263] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHA MATHA VS. R VIJAYA RENGANATHAN [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
PARTIES NAME SANDEEP JAIN VS. NIVEDITA JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-600] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN VS. RAJESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
N JOTHI GANESH VS. SRIDEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
M KARTHIKA VS. R MANOHAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASHREE ALIAS VANITA RAJESH DIXIT VS. RAJESH NAGESH DIXIT [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI BAI VS. PREM NARAYAN KUSHWAHA [LAWS(MPH)-2005-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALASANAN ALIAS SURESH VS. SREELAJA [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-172] [REFERRED TO]
L YUVARAJ VS. KIRUBAARANI DEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
ROHINI VS. R DURAIRAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-188] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH MITTAL VS. SEEMA MITTAL [LAWS(DLH)-2005-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
S. HONNAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
NISHITA SINGH VS. ABHISHEK SINGH TOMAR [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
C. THANGAVEL VS. P. VIJAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-237] [REFERRED TO]
KANI AMMAL (DECEASED) VS. TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-298] [REFERRED TO]
NILAY KANT MISHRA VS. VIBHA MISHRA [LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
THANGAVELU VS. SIVAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-388] [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DASS VS. TEEKU DUTTA [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-136] [REFERRED TO]
NIHAR RANJAN BISWAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
MINOTI SINGH VS. RAHUL CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-363] [REFERRED]
S V PARTHASARTHAY BHATTACHARIAR VS. S RAJESHWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SINGARAVELU VS. SATHYA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-334] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTH VS. KANTA BAT [LAWS(MPH)-2006-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
M. SUNDARARAJ VS. S. RADHIKA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-215] [REFERRED TO]
L YUVARAJ VS. KIRUBAARANI ALIAS AMBIGA DEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. MANDEEP KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2016-4-213] [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DASS VS. TEEKU DUTTA [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-109] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The above appeals have been filed against the order of a learned single judge of the High Court of Punjab and haryana at Chandigarh dated 10. 11.2000 in civil revision no. 5057/ 1998 and a subsequent order dated 7.12.2000 passed in a review application no. 112-C-II/2000.
(2.)Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Rajendra Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
(3.)The appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The respondent - husband has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the court of learned district judge, Ludhiana seeking dissolution of the marriage by grant of a decree for divorce on the grounds of alleged adultery and cruelty. The said petition is still pending for trial and final disposal. Pending the said petition, the appellant herein filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month for herself and Rs. 1000/- each for minor children residing with her. There is no dispute over the fact that out of the lawful wedlock, the appellant has given birth to three daughters and one son, of which, one daughter is said to be with the appellant. There is yet another son who is also living with the appellant-wife, who also is claimed to be a son borne out of the lawful wedlock, though the respondent -husband would raise doubts about the details of parentage of the said child Having regard to the fact that a limited notice has been issued in this case, confined to the question with regard to the order passed by the High court for conducting a DNA test of the child. it is unnecessary to deal with the details with reference to the claims made by the respective parties about the details of income of either of the parties. Suffice it to state that the learned trial judge has chosen to reject the claim for interim maintenance and on a revision before the High Court, the learned single judge though was prepared to countenance the claim of the wife and as a matter of fact directed the respondent - husband to pay Rs. 2000/- by way of litigation expenses to the appellant and pay a further sum of Rs. 2000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of her application, proceeded further and observed as follows:-
"During the course of the submissions, it was suggested to the counsel for the petitioner and his client Smt. Amarjit Kaur whether they are willing to get DNA test of the male child namely Samarjit Singh. Before concluding, directions are also given to the trial court to order for conducting the DNA test of the male child who is in the custody of the petitioner and if the test goes against the petitioner, she will not be entitled to get any maintenance pendente lite for herself but she will definitely get the maintenance for the girl child whose maintenance is fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. "
(2.)Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Rajendra Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
(3.)The appellant is the wife of the first respondent. The respondent - husband has filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the court of learned district judge, Ludhiana seeking dissolution of the marriage by grant of a decree for divorce on the grounds of alleged adultery and cruelty. The said petition is still pending for trial and final disposal. Pending the said petition, the appellant herein filed an application under section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance for a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month for herself and Rs. 1000/- each for minor children residing with her. There is no dispute over the fact that out of the lawful wedlock, the appellant has given birth to three daughters and one son, of which, one daughter is said to be with the appellant. There is yet another son who is also living with the appellant-wife, who also is claimed to be a son borne out of the lawful wedlock, though the respondent -husband would raise doubts about the details of parentage of the said child Having regard to the fact that a limited notice has been issued in this case, confined to the question with regard to the order passed by the High court for conducting a DNA test of the child. it is unnecessary to deal with the details with reference to the claims made by the respective parties about the details of income of either of the parties. Suffice it to state that the learned trial judge has chosen to reject the claim for interim maintenance and on a revision before the High Court, the learned single judge though was prepared to countenance the claim of the wife and as a matter of fact directed the respondent - husband to pay Rs. 2000/- by way of litigation expenses to the appellant and pay a further sum of Rs. 2000/- per month by way of maintenance from the date of her application, proceeded further and observed as follows:-
"During the course of the submissions, it was suggested to the counsel for the petitioner and his client Smt. Amarjit Kaur whether they are willing to get DNA test of the male child namely Samarjit Singh. Before concluding, directions are also given to the trial court to order for conducting the DNA test of the male child who is in the custody of the petitioner and if the test goes against the petitioner, she will not be entitled to get any maintenance pendente lite for herself but she will definitely get the maintenance for the girl child whose maintenance is fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.