Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Malka And Others on 26 November, 2013
CRR No.2703 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2703 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 26.11.2013
Harjinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Malka and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
1. Whether Reporters of the local papers 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?
Present: Mr. Karamjit Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
R.P. Nagrath, J.
The instant revision has been filed to challenge the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and order dated 10.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge for enhancement of amount of maintenance for respondents No.2 to 4 under Section 127 Cr.P.C..
2. The petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 4. Vide order dated 14.3.2003 the Judicial Magistrate granted maintenance allowance to respondent No.1 wife @ Rs.1,000/- per month and for minor children @ Rs.500/- per Kumar Sureshmonth. The respondents filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 2013.12.21 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2703 of 2013 2
on 27.5.2004 for enhancement of maintenance allowance.
3. The petitioner contested the application by pleading that there has not been any change or increase in his income. So the petition was not legally maintainable. It was further pleaded that in fact the petitioner filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for modification of the maintenance order dated 14.3.2003 and the respondents filed application for increase of the maintenance allowance as a counterblast.
4. Learned Judicial Magistrate decided both the applications on 26.3.2012 cancelling maintenance allowance of wife on the ground that she was an earning hand and enhanced the maintenance for respondents No.2 and 3 to Rs.2,000/- each per month and for respondent No.4 to Rs.1500/- per month. The maintenance granted to respondent No.1 wife was cancelled with effect from the date of application.
5. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which ought to be a revision against the order of the Judicial Magistrate and the same was dismissed on 10.6.2013. Respondent No.1 otherwise did not challenge the cancellation of maintenance which was earlier granted to her.
6. The instant revision is first of all not maintainable because the plea of petitioner before the Sessions Court though styled as appeal could be only revision before the Sessions Court and, therefore, second revision at the instance of the petitioner would not be maintainable in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr.P.C. Kumar Suresh 2013.12.21 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2703 of 2013 3 To be fair with the petitioner, I proceed to decide the petition even on merits if the instant petition is to be treated as one under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and find no merit in the challenge to the impugned orders.
8. I find that evidence led before the trial Court was discussed in the right perspective by both the Courts below holding that the minor respondents were studying in schools and respondent No.1 was paying school fee for all of them. Apart from that, expenses of maintenance of children would have increased with the children growing up. Original order granting maintenance allowance was passed in the year 2003, and it is not stated as to when the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. The trial Court decided application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. on 26.3.2012 and by then the living has become so expensive as rightly observed by the revisional Court. The Courts below have also found respondent No.1 to be earning Rs.7500/- per month and despite that the petitioner has still a greater responsibility for contributing towards maintenance of the children. Respondent No.1 produced into evidence Ex.P-1 to P-4 bills of tuition fee of Jasmeet Kaur respondent No.3, Ex.P-5 bill of uniform; Ex.P-6 bill of tuition fee and other purchases and Ex.P-7 bill of books and stationery for respondent No.4 Tarandeep Singh; Ex.P-8 to P-10 bills of tuition fee of Tarandeep Singh and Ex.P-11 the bill of purchase of uniform. About the expenditure being incurred on the education of the children, the revisional Court has observed Kumar Suresh 2013.12.21 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2703 of 2013 4 as under: -
"This argument that fee receipts etc. are not of PBM Public School but are of some other school and that uniform bill and other bills are not legally proved by examining author thereof is not found to be much convincing. The fact that petitioners No.2 to 4 were studying in schools was not denied. So, they may or may not be studying in PBM Public Schools but in P.B. Memorial Public School or Shri Guru Harkishan Public School but the fact remains that they are studying and the expenses on school fee, uniform, conveyance etc. can be well understood. As such, considering the totality of facts, learned trial Court has rightly granted maintenance to petitioners No.2 to 4. It is also worth mentioning that maintenance earlier granted to petitioner No.1 stands cancelled/altered. So total liability of respondent to pay maintenance amount is Rs.5500/- per month which was earlier Rs.2500/- per month. This much enhancement is justified considering the totality of facts as well as the fact that maintenance order was earlier passed in the year 2003."
9. It was not the case pleaded by the petitioner that any of the child has attained majority.
10. The Courts below have also discussed the petitioner's version that he was earning Rs.1000/- to 1200/- per month only. But Kumar Suresh 2013.12.21 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2703 of 2013 5 it was noticed that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs.93,000/- on 23.1.2003 and another amount of Rs.40,000/- on 7.9.2001 from the bank and also keeps a locker in the bank. The revisional Court has rightly observed that it is not expected that a man earning Rs.1000/- to 1200/- per month would withdraw such a heavy amount and spend the same.
11. The trial Court while fixing the maintenance allowance has taken into consideration the ages of the children.
12. At the end learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents are claiming the enhancement from the date of application which was filed in 2004 though there was no such specific direction in the order of trial Court dated 26.3.2012. It was contended that only the maintenance of respondent No.1 was cancelled with effect from the date of application. For that the petitioner may move the trial Magistrate and seek clarification by placing on record even the copy of maintenance order dated 14.3.2003.
13. From the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the instant petition which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(R.P. Nagrath) 26.11.2013 Judge sk Kumar Suresh 2013.12.21 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh