The High Court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside a lower court order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance. The court found no error as the petitioner was employed and the wife lacked income.
Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. 55011-M of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**Crl. Misc. No. 55011-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 *****
Manmohan Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Ranjit Kaur @ Amrit Kaur & Anr.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR.
Present:Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner.
**Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate for respondents. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is impugning the judgments passed by the Courts below directing him to pay maintenance amount to respondent No.1 @ Rs.2800/- per month from the date of institution of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper book carefully.
The relationship between the parties and their separation is not in dispute. In support of the plea that the wife is living separately out of her own free, no evidence was led by the petitioner-husband. Even he himself failed to step into the witness box. Finding that the respondent No.1 has no source of income to earn her livelihood and keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial one and have been enacted to prevent neglected wife, children or the parents, as the case may be, from the hands of starvation and vagrancy and from the point of view that the petitioner-husband is a man of means, being employed as Line-man with PSEB, rightly fixed the maintenance amount of the respondents. It cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 2800/- per month is on higher side, especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living. By dint of
Crl. Misc. No. 55011-M of 2007 2
the impugned order, only a legal duty, which the petitioner has failed to oblige, has been imposed. There is no illegality of perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 6,2009 Jiten
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the нижестоящий court erred in directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manmohan Singh
Ranjit Kaur @ Amrit Kaur & Anr.
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
