Dismissed

Monu v. Payal

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2018CRM-M/10748/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged interim maintenance granted to his minor daughter and dismissal of his revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court upheld the lower courts' finding that a father is bound to maintain a minor child regardless of the parents' marital status, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited payable to the respondent.

Monu Vs Payal — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

121

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-10748 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 09, 2018

Monu

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Payal

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Varun Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against respondent Payal, for quashing the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul and also challenging the judgment dated 11.01.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶15

From the record, I find that Payal, minor daughter of present petitioner, filed a petition against Monu under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. During the pendency of that petition, an application was filed for interim maintenance. It is the case of applicant Payal that marriage between mother of the applicant and Monu was solemnized on 05.07.2011 Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy andand she was born from the wedlock on 01.06.2012. A dispute arose between authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM No.M-10748 of 2018

¶17

-2-

¶18

applicant's mother and Monu and their marriage was dissolved vide order dated 21.11.2013. The applicant is residing with her mother, who has solemnized second marriage with one Dilawar. It is further the case of the applicant that she is minor and has no source of income, whereas respondent-Monu (present petitioner) is landlord and agriculturist by profession and earning more than 20,000/- per month. The application was contested by present petitioner. Learned JMIC, Narnaul, vide impugned order dated 19.05.2016, granted interim maintenance to applicant Payal at the rate of 1500/- per month.

¶19

A revision was filed by the petitioner and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Narnual, dismissed the same vide impugned judgment dated 11.01.2018. Aggrieved from the above said order and judgment, present petition has been filed.

¶20

Admittedly, Payal is minor daughter of the present petitioner. Nothing has been argued nor pleaded that minor has any independent source of income to maintain herself. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C., present petitioner is bound to maintain the minor child. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued qua wife that she has maltreated the petitioner and deserted him and got remarried but wife is not a party nor asking for maintenance. It is only the minor daughter, who is asking for maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that interim maintenance be deposited in the shape of FDR. This argument has no merit. A meagre amount of `1500/- has been awarded by the Court for maintenance. If this amount is deposited in FDR, then how the minor girl will be maintained and who will bear her expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that custody of minor Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentgirl Payal should be given to the petitioner and he has filed separate Chandigarh

¶21

-3-

¶22

CRM No.M-10748 of 2018

¶23

petition. As regarding this argument, I find that fact regarding custody of minor child is to be determined by the Court in separate proceedings. Till the minor child is residing separately from present petitioner, he is bound to pay the maintenance.

¶24

In view of the above discussion, I find that no illegality has been committed by learned Courts below while passing the impugned order and judgment and the same are upheld.

¶25

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed with costs of `10,000/- to be deposited before the Court below payable to respondent Payal, as per law.

¶26

Since, main case is decided, therefore, misc. application, if any,

¶27

shall stand disposed of automatically.

¶28

July 09, 2	018	(INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
	Whether reportable	No

¶29

Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Monu v. Payal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. Payal

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

Yogesh Vs State of Haryana

Darshan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jamat Ali @ Jeeti Vs State of Punjab

Sukhraj Singh @Sukha Vs State of Punjab

Satwinder Singh @ Rahul Vs State of Punjab

Makhandeen Vs State of Punjab & Others