The petitioner-husband has filed the present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby on application filed by the respondent-wife under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses, the petitioner-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as pendente lite maintenance from the date of filing of the application. In addition thereof, a sum of Rs.8,000/- has also been granted to the respondent towards litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the pendente lite maintenance awarded by learned family Court is on higher side more
1 of 2 CR No.1761 of 2018 particularly when the petitioner has to take care of three children, who are staying with him. The petitioner is a labourer and is earning only daily wages. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. While awarding pendente lite maintenance, learned family Court has taken care of the fact that even an unskilled worker is getting minimum wages to the tune of Rs.8,280.20 Ps. per month, as notified by the Haryana Government vide notification dated 02.03.2017. Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned family Court, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife as pendente lite maintenance is not on higher side. Virtually, it comes to Rs.100/- per day. So long as a marriage subsists, it is the legal obligation of a husband to maintain his wife. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by learned family Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the family Court is affirmed and the instant civil revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (HARI PAL VERMA) April 17, 2018 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No
2 of 2