VARUN PARMAR Vs. PARUL SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, by virtue of which the petitioner-husband has been directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as maintenance pendente-lite to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act of 1955') in addition to the maintenance being awarded by the Army Authority, the petitioner had filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) Consequent to a marital dispute between the parties, the petitioner-husband had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent which was solemnized on 28.05.2010. No child born out of the wedlock. During pendency of the For Subsequent orders see CM-4962-CII-2017 petition, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 claiming maintenance pendente-lite to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 33,000/- from the petitioner. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 20.01.2016 held the respondent entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses, but declined her prayer for maintenance pendente-lite. The respondent filed an application for review of the order dated 20.01.2016 alleging that the Court had wrongly observed that she was availing maintenance to the tune of 50% of pay and allowances of the petitioner and also availing facilities such as ration, CSD facility, free medical facility and other facilities at very low cost and in addition was enjoying army accommodation at the cost of her husband whereas she had actually been sanctioned 22% per month of the pay and allowances of the petitioner by the Army Authorities under section 90(i) of the Army Act, 1950.

(3.) After hearing counsel for both the parties, learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 reviewed his previous order and awarded Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite to the respondent from the date of filing of the application in addition to the maintenance being awarded by the Army Authority. As indicated above, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2016, the instant revision petition was preferred by the petitioner.