The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order enhancing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding the awarded amount reasonable and the petition un-maintainable as a second revision.
The petition challenging the enhanced maintenance order was 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.
CRM-M No.15287 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.15287 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2013
Joginder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumari and another
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Jagmit Singh, Advocate, for Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the respondents.
********
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL)
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for
quashing of order dated 16.10.2008, (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the order dated 22.01.2008, (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, granting enhanced maintenance to
the respondents, at the rate of 1,500/- and 1,200/- per month, respectively, was affirmed.
CRM-M No.15287 of 2009
2
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is earning only 15,000/- per month. He further submits that the respondent-wife is earning 5,800/- per month as she is employed in Khalsa College, Patiala. He cites Khursheed Ahmad Vs. Smt. Zakira, 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 381 (P&H); and Meena Choudhary Vs. Satya Narain Kanwar, 1988(1) PLR 94.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner is a Class III employee (Typist) with the Food Corporation of India and his gross salary is more than `25,000/- per month. The child born out of the wedlock is also being maintained by the respondent-wife. He cites Chaturbhuj Vs. Siat Bai, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 163. Heard.
The petitioner-husband is earning more than `25,000/per month. The respondent-wife is maintaining the child as well. The alleged income of the wife is insufficient to maintain her and her child, thus, she has a right to receive the just and reasonable maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., so that the wife should be in a position to maintain the standard of living which is at par with that of the husband.
Merely because a decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been obtained by the husband against his wife, it will not debar the wife from claiming maintenance for her and the
CRM-M No.15287 of 2009
3
minor child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the right of minor child is independent to the right of the wife, to claim maintenance. The maintenance awarded is just and reasonable.
Otherwise also, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which in fact is a second revision against an order passed by the revisional Court, affirming the order of the trial Court in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts of the present case, this Court feels that the amount of maintenance is not on the higher side and therefore, no case for interference therein, is made out.
Dismissed.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE
01.04.2013 atulsethi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. warrants interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petition for quashing the maintenance order is maintainable as a second revision.
Whether the wife is barred from claiming maintenance due to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Joginder Singh
Mukesh Kumari
Another
Jitendra Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
