Punjab-Haryana High CourtNeeraj Joshi vs Jyotsna Sharma on 21 May, 2013Author:Rajan GuptaBench:Rajan GuptaC.R.No.3274 of 2012                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                                  C.R. No. 3274 of 2012
                                  Date of decision :May 21, 2013


Neeraj Joshi
                                                                    ....Petitioner
                                      Versus
Jyotsna Sharma
                                                                  ....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA


Present :      Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
               for the petioner.

               Mr.Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate
               for the respondent.

Rajan Gupta, J. (Oral)Present revision is directed against the order passed by

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar whereby application

of respondent-husband for grant of maintenance has been dismissed and by

another order he has asked to pay maintenance for minor child @ Rs.4000/-

per month.Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the court. He has limited

his challenge to the maintenance granted by the court below. He submits

that respondent is not incurring any expenses on education of the minor

child, thus petitioner is not required to pay any maintenance.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.A petition was instituted by the petitioner for grant of divorce.

During the pendency of the petition, an application underSection 24of the

Hindu Marriage Act was moved by him seeking maintenance for himself onC.R.No.3274 of 2012                  2the ground that he was not having sufficient resources. By an another order,

court granted maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs.4000/- per month for

maintenance of minor child. The court below came to the conclusion that

petitioner is able bodied person and looked after his needs. Thus dismissed

his application for maintenance.     I find no infirmity with the findings

arrived at by the court below. Like-wise, there is no merit in the contention

of the counsel for the petitioner that he is not liable to give maintenance to

the minor child. Being father he has duty to pay maintenance for education

of his child and meet his other expenses. I thus find no merit in the revision

petition.Dismissed.( Rajan Gupta)
May 21, 2013                                               Judge
BB