The observation was made by the HC in a plea filed by a city couple regarding the maintenance awarded to the wife on orders of the lower court.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said that a wife during the period of separation would be entitled to the same standard of living as she was enjoying while living with the husband, while upholding the judgement of a lower court which granted an interim maintenance of Rs 40,000 per month to a Chandigarh woman.

“Coming to the challenge of both the parties qua the maintenance so awarded, the same does not warrant any interference, as it goes without saying that the wife would be entitled to the same standard of living, which she was enjoying while living with the petitioner-husband,” a single bench of the HC said in a ruling.

The observation was made by the HC in a plea filed by a city couple regarding the maintenance awarded to the wife on orders of the lower court. The wife in 2016 had filed an application before the JMIC Court Chandigarh under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In 2016, the trial court had granted the wife an interim maintenance of Rs 35,000 per month and Rs 30,000 per month as rent for an alternate accommodation. In addition, the husband was also restrained from alienating his share to the extent of 50 per cent in his Sector 18-A house. Before the Sessions Court, the couple reached a settlement that the wife would live in the shared household instead of seeking a monthly rent, however, the maintenance for her and their child was enhanced to Rs 40,000 per month.

The single bench in its order said that according to the settlement, the husband was to provide his wife with an accommodation, one bedroom with an attached bathroom and a kitchen. The Court said added that the husband cannot be permitted to challenge the order on the grounds that the accommodation was wrongly ordered to be given to the wife as the joint house had been partitioned.

“It is the own case of the husband that he is a 50 per cent shareholder in the house in question and admittedly, the parties had resided there after their marriage in 2004 and as such, in the opinion of this Court and in terms of the Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the wife has a right to reside in the house, which can be said to be a shared household in terms of Section 2 (s) of the Domestic Violenc Act, 2005,” read the order.