Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs.1,000 per month to each petitioner. Court found no ground to disturb concurrent orders of courts below, noting wife already received Rs.4,000 monthly under the DV Act and gave no reason for not working despite being able-bodied.
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.
Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
238 CRM-M-10579-2018 (O&M)
Date of order: 09.08.2024
Smt. Babita Devi and another
…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Prem Kumar
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Sh. J.P. Sharma, Advocat e for the petitioners.
Sh. Mukesh Yadav, Advo c ate for the respondent.
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present petition under S e ction 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking sett i ng aside of impugned judgme n t dated 25.01.2018 passed b y learned Ses s ions Judge, Narnaul (Annexu r e P2) vide which the revisio n petition was dismissed, challenging the low e r side maintenance at the rat e of Rs.1,00 0 /- per month to each p e titioners by learned SDJM , Mahenderg a rh vide impugned order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P1) an d prayer for granting maintenance Rs.10,000 / - to each petitioner.
SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
Page 2 of 4
Rs.1,000/-. I t is contended that the respo n dent/husband is working in a company on a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/per month. Besides this, he ha s land of 16-1 7 acres and has buffaloes whos e milk he sells and thus he earn s Rs.6-8 lacs per annum. It is accordingl y prayed that the impugne d maintenanc e be enhanced.
4. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the parties.
SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
Page 3 of 4
5. I have heard learned cou n sel for the parties and peruse d the case file in great detail.
6. Perusal of record of the c ase shows that petitioner No. 1 was marrie d to the respondent on 19.07. 2 010. Petitioner No.2 was bor n out of their w edlock on 06.10.2012. Due to matrimonial discord the partie s started livin g separately. Present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wa s filed by the p etitioners on 24.12.2013.
7. Vide order dated 07.04. 2 017 the learned Sub-Divisiona l Judicial Mag i strate, Mahendergarh had gra n ted Rs.1,000/- per month eac h to the petiti o ners. The petitioners had chall e nged the said order before th e learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul by way of C riminal Appeal No.41A of 201 7 which was d i smissed vide judgment dated 2 5 .01.2018 (Annexure P2).
8. Perusal of the record of the case shows that on the basi s of oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Sub - Divisional J u dicial Magistrate found that the respondent was earnin g Rs.9,000/- to 10,000/- per month and had accordingly, granted th e impugned maintenance.
9. I find no ground is mad e out to disturb the concurren t orders of th e Courts below. It has not been denied by petitioner No.1 tha t she is alrea d y, receiving Rs.4,000/- per mo n th from the respondent unde r the D.V. Ac t . It has also not been deni e d by the petitioners that th e respondent had filed a petition under s ection 9 HMA, in which th e SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
Page 4 of 4
petitioner N o .1 did not appear. It is also n ot denied that the responden t and his family have been acquitted in the F IR filed by the petitioner No.1 , and the app e al there-against has been dismissed. On a question put by thi s Court to th e learned counsel for petitione r s, as to why petitioner No.1 i s not working despite being admittedly able b odied, no satisfactory reply ha s
been receiv e d.
10. In view of the above, pre s ent petition is d ismissed.
09.08.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.08.13 11:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
1 issue framed by the court
Whether maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each petitioner should be enhanced.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Babita Devi
Prem Kumar
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
