Revision petition against maintenance order dismissed. Court rejected petitioner's claims regarding excess payment, non-residence, and employment status as insufficient grounds to deny maintenance to wife and minor son.
The revision petition was dismissed with no specific additional relief granted other than upholding the maintenance order.
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. Rev. No.701 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No.701 of 2012 Date of Decision: 05.03.2012
Pardeep
....Petitioner
Versus
Ratnanghda
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, vide which, the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to the respondent-wife.
The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, while impugning the said judgment, is that the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- as interim maintenance from the date of application in pursuance to the earlier Order passed by the Court below. As such, the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgan could not have passed the Order dated 29.11.2011, vide which, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- p.m to the respondent-wife and her minor son from the date of
Crl. Rev. No.701 of 2012
2
application i.e. 09.08.2010.
The said argument has no merit, in as much as, the Court while granting the said maintenance from the date of application, duly held that the amount already received by the respondent-wife and her minor son towards interim maintenance shall be liable to be adjusted towards the maintenance allowance awarded vide Order dated 29.11.2011.
The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compromise had been arrived at between the parties and the present petition has been filed only to harass him.
It is evident from the compromise (Annexure P-3) that the parties had agreed to stay together. It is an admitted position that the parties are not residing together in pursuance to the said compromise (Annexure P-3). As such, the same has no bearing on the grant of maintenance to the wife and to her minor son.
The third argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is not a permanent doctor and his appointment stands cancelled.
It is not denied that the petitioner is a qualified doctor by profession and is an able bodied person. Thus, the said excuse, in itself, is not sufficient to deny the maintenance to the wife and to his minor son. To maintain his wife and the minor son is the responsibility of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE
05.03.2012 gurpreet
3 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance award remains valid despite intermittent non-residence by the parties.
Whether a cancelled or temporary employment appointment negates the financial obligation to pay maintenance.
Whether the petitioner's argument that interim payments should be deducted from the regular maintenance allowance holds merit.
Pardeep
Ratnangha
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
