A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an interim maintenance order was dismissed. The court refused interference as facts regarding land allotment remained disputed and the trial remained pending.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; interim maintenance order not interfered with.
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
CRM M-22090 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.1.2012
Ran Singh and another
.... Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Naraini Devi and others
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioners.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2010 (P-1) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa as well as judgment dated 27.4.2011 (P-4) passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby each of the petitioners as well as respondents No.2 and 3 have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.2500/- each) to respondent No.1 as maintenance from the date of application.
The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the compromise, the other brother of the petitioners i.e. Amar Singh was given the land. As such it was his duty to look after the mother.
However, while granting the interim maintenance both the sons i.e. Amar Singh and Ram Partap respondents No.2 and 3 have also been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- each to their mother.
CRM M-22090 of 2011
-2-
The petitioners have challenged the order granting interim maintenance. Main case is still pending before the trial Court. Thus, fact as to whether any land was given to respondent No.2-Amar Singh to look after his mother and whether there was any such compromise or not is a disputed question to be decided by the trial Court.
As such, there is not ground to interfere with the interim maintenance granted by the court below.
Dismissed.
19.1.2012 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the interim maintenance order granted by the trial court in a pending maintenance dispute.
Ran Singh and another
Smt. Naraini Devi and others
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
