IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 129 RAJIV MAHAJAN NIDHI MAHAJAN CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR Present : Mr HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana by which, the maintenance has been granted under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the wife as well as two ch been granted a sum of granted `10,000/ education expenses as well. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that without no fact with regard to the paying capacity of the appellant, direction has been given to pay the maintenance which comes to hence, the said order dated 16.07.2025 may kindly be set aside. 3. We have heard learned through the record with his able assistance. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. Date of decision: RAJIV MAHAJAN Versus NIDHI MAHAJAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (oral) In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana by which, the maintenance has been granted under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the wife as well as two ch been granted a sum of `5,000/- per month whereas, the two children have been 10,000/- each keeping in view that they need maintenance qua education expenses as well. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that without no fact with regard to the paying capacity of the appellant, direction has been given to pay the maintenance which comes to hence, the said order dated 16.07.2025 may kindly be set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.5338 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.09.2025 …. Appellant …. Respondent HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI RAMESH KUMARI , Advocate for the appellant. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana by which, the maintenance has been granted under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the wife as well as two children. The wife has per month whereas, the two children have been each keeping in view that they need maintenance qua Learned counsel for the appellant argues that without noticing the fact with regard to the paying capacity of the appellant, direction has been given to pay the maintenance which comes to `25,000/- per month in total, hence, the said order dated 16.07.2025 may kindly be set aside. counsel for the appellant and have gone In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana by which, the maintenance has been granted under Section 24 of ildren. The wife has per month whereas, the two children have been each keeping in view that they need maintenance qua ticing the fact with regard to the paying capacity of the appellant, direction has been per month in total, counsel for the appellant and have gone Jyoti 2025.09.29 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. All the facts have been mentioned in the order itself. The paying capacity has been assessed been brought on record to re the appellant is be accepted. It may be noticed that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the appellant has been paying a sum of pursuance to the order passed appellant was paying appellant’s salary is only cannot be accepted. 5. No other argument has been raised. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference, hence the present appeal is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. September 24, 2025 Jyoti-IV FAO No.5338 of 2025 (O&M) All the facts have been mentioned in the order itself. The paying capacity has been assessed to be `60,000/- per month and no evidence has been brought on record to rebut the said finding before this Court that salary of the appellant is `18,000/- as being pleaded hence, be accepted. It may be noticed that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the appellant has been paying a sum of ` pursuance to the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. That being so, appellant was paying `25,000/- per month, ’s salary is only `18,000/- , and he does not have the paying capacity, cannot be accepted. No other argument has been raised. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference, hence the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No (O&M) -2- All the facts have been mentioned in the order itself. The paying per month and no evidence has said finding before this Court that salary of hence, salary of `18,000/- cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that prior to the passing of the impugned order, `25,000/- to the respondent in under Section 125 Cr.P.C. That being so, once per month, the said assertion that the does not have the paying capacity, No other argument has been raised. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is made out for any interference, hence the present appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No All the facts have been mentioned in the order itself. The paying per month and no evidence has said finding before this Court that salary of cannot be accepted. It may be noticed that prior to the passing of the impugned order, to the respondent in once the said assertion that the does not have the paying capacity, Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, no ground is ) Jyoti 2025.09.29 15:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document