Dismissed

Ravinder Kumar v. Tripta and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Oct 2012CRM-M/1625/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court upheld the maintenance award of Rs. 10,000 per month granted to the respondent-wife and children. The court held that the husband failed to prove the wife's independent income and that reappraisal of evidence is not permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The petition for revision was dismissed, and the maintenance order of Rs. 10,000 per month was quashed.

Ravinder Kumar Vs Tripta and Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM-M No.1625 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.1625 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision : 05.10.2012

¶6

Ravinder Kumar Bansal

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Tripta and others

¶10

…Respondents

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

********

¶13

Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. Kulveer Narwal, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶15

********

¶16

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 31.01.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of `10,000/- per month, as maintenance to the respondents; and order dated 22.10.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal of the husbandpetitioner.

¶18

CRM-M No.1625 of 2012

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contends that the petitioner is 7^th standard pass and working as a salesman in a cloth shop. He is earning 5,000/- per month and it would not be possible for him to pay the maintenance to the tune of 10,000/- per month. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent-wife is a qualified teacher and earning sufficiently.

¶21

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a man of resources. He has failed to prove on record that the respondent No.1 the wife is working as a teacher.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

It has come on record that the petitioner-husband did not lead any evidence to prove that the respondent-wife has sufficient means to maintain herself as well as the children. He has also failed to show that he is not earning enough to maintain the respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioner-husband is legally bound to provide maintenance to her legally-wedded wife and the children born out of the wedlock. The learned Courts below, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, determined the amount of maintenance of `10,000/- per month, which is most reasonable and adequate amount. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not open to the husband to take the plea that the maintenance awarded to the wife and children under Section 125

¶24

CRM-M No.1625 of 2012

¶25

¶26

Cr.P.C. is on higher side, as reappraisal of evidence is impermissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which in fact is a second revision in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

¶27

Therefore, no ground for interference in the impugned

¶28

orders is made out.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

05.10.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE

Ravinder Kumar v. Tripta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar v. Tripta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daljit Singh Alias Jeeta Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurmeet Kaur Alias Meeto Vs State of Punjab

Gian Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Poonam Rani Vs State of Punjab

Kala @ Charkanda and Anr. Vs State of Punjab