The High Court dismissed a contempt petition challenging a maintenance order. The Court found the petitioner admitted owning land and receiving a pension, justifying the quantum fixed by lower courts.
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the revision were 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-7873 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.11.2011
Ram Kumar Yadav ....Petitioner(s) vs. Smt.Mewa Devi ....Respondent(s) ***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for setting aside the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) on an application moved under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. vide which respondent-wife has been granted maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the said application and also order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar (Annexure P-2) dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that without ascertaining the income of the petitioner, maintenance has been fixed at the rate of 3,000/- per month. As a matter of fact, on an earlier application moved in the year 1976 by a mutual agreement,65/- per month was fixed as maintenance to the wife w.e.f.1.3.1979 vide order dated 17.3.1979. Counsel
Crl.Misc.No.M-7873 of 2009 (O&M)
-2-
contends that the increase is manifold and without any basis and, therefore, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-wife submits that the petitioner is owner of eight acres of land in which agriculture is being done. He has purchased three flats in the name of his sons who were born out of the second marriage and is also receiving pension. He contends that the amount granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate is just and equitable and does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
A perusal of the order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar clearly indicates that the petitioner had initially tried to mislead the Court by saying that he has no source of income, however, in cross-examination he admitted the fact that he had 8 acres of land and further that he had purchased three flats in the name of his sons who were born out of the second marriage. He had admitted that he had earned a lot of money and during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner further admitted that he is receiving pension of ` 4,000/per month.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the meager amount of Rs.65/- per month granted as maintenance in the year 1979 was on a much lower side when compared to the soaring prices of commodities which are essential for the maintenance of a person for survival. The amount of Rs.3,000/- per month granted by the trial Court which has been upheld by the revisional Court is fully in
Crl.Misc.No.M-7873 of 2009 (O&M)
-3-
accordance with the evidence on record and quite justified and, thus, calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed.
November 23, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the cross-applications challenging the maintenance order and revisional order should be allowed.
Ram Kumar Yadav
Smt. Mewa Devi
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
