FAO-215-2025 (O 129 IN THE Amit Jangra Deepika CORAM: Present:- SUDHIR SIN 07.11.2024 pa Rohtak (for s Section 24 of t the respondent of Rs.40,000 expenses of Rs 2. respondent/wif averring there care of her m mercy of her 025 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH Date of de ngra versus HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUD HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUK Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the a ***** R SINGH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present appe passed by learned Additional Prin (for short the ‘Family Court’), wher 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (f ondent-wife, has been allowed, and sh ,000/- per month as maintenance pend Rs.11,000/-. In a petition under Section 9 ent/wife, she had also filed the afores therein that she had no source of in her minor girl child of about 8 mon f her parents. It was averred that JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH FAO-215-2025 (O&M) e of decision: February 10, 2025 ….Appellant ….Respondent SUDHIR SINGH E SUKHVINDER KAUR r the appellant. appeal is to the order dated Principal Judge, Family Court, , whereby, an application under 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) filed by and she has been awarded a sum pendente lite, besides litigation 9 of the Act, filed by the aforesaid application, inter alia, of income. She was also taking 8 months and was living at the that the appellant/husband was MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment FAO-215-2025 (O&M) Bachelor of Technology from IIT Roorki and was serving as Senior Application Engineer in Ansys (U.S based company) at Sector 126, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and was earning Rs.41 lakh per annum. The appellant/husband had no liability except the respondent/wife and the minor girl. Thus, the respondent/wife had claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per month as maintenance pendente lite, Rs.25,000/- for minor girl and Rs.25,000/- for house arrangement. 3. The said application was contested by the appellant/husband contending that the respondent/wife was not entitled to maintenance due to her own act and conduct of cheating the appellant/husband by concealing her pre-existing ailment. The respondent/wife had herself left the society of the appellant. He denied earning of Rs.41 lakh per annum, and submitted that in fact, his salary was Rs.1,50,000/- per month and he also had a financial liability of Rs.80,000/- per month towards repayment of loan, including the housing loan. He was also paying Rs.30,000/- per month to the respondent/wife and minor girl as interim maintenance in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the DV Act’). The respondent/wife was more qualified (M.Tech in Electronics and Communication Engineer) than the appellant/husband and was skilled, competent and capable of earning handsomely. 4. The learned Family Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent/wife, as noticed above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband vehemently contends that while passing the impugned order, learned Family Court MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment FAO-215-2025 (O&M) has ignored the factum of interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month already granted to the respondent/wife in the proceedings under the DV Act. It is further argued that as the respondent/wife is more qualified than the appellant/husband, she can very well earn to maintain herself. It is also argued that the respondent/wife is not entitled to any maintenance amount as she had concealed the factum of her pre-existing ailment from the appellant/husband. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the impugned order. 7. It was found by the learned Family Court that the respondent/wife had no source of income, and that regarding the allegation of the appellant/husband with respect to higher qualification and earning capability of the respondent/wife, he had not placed on record any evidence to prima facie substantiating the same. The appellant/husband had himself mentioned his monthly income as Rs.1,90,000/- in the affidavit of assets and liabilities. It was also admitted fact that minor girl was in the custody of the respondent/wife. The factum of grant of Rs.30,000/- as interim maintenance in the proceedings under the DV Act was also taken into consideration by learned Family Court. It was also observed by the learned Family Court that the amount awarded in the present proceedings shall be adjustable against the amount awarded in related proceedings between the parties. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order, which warrants any interference by this Court. 9. No other point has been urged. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment FAO-215-2025 (O&M) 10. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE February 10, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.02.14 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment