Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Kaur And Another vs Paramjit Singh on 12 July, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M- 3986 of 2010(O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 12.7.2010
Criminal Misc. No.M- 3986 of 2010(O&M)
Sukhwinder Kaur and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Paramjit Singh .......Respondent
Criminal Misc. No.M- 21588 of 2009(O&M)
Paramjit Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Sukhwinder Kaur and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Hemender Goswami, Advocate,
for the petitioners in CRM-M No.3986 of 2010 and
for the respondents in CRM-M No.21588 of 2009.
Mr.IPS Kohli, Advocate, for
Mr.R.K.Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M No.21588 of 2009 and
for the respondent in CRM-M No.3986 of 2010
****
SABINA, J.
This order will dispose of CRM-M No.3986 of 2010 and CRM-M No.21588 of 2009 as these have arisen out of the same Criminal Misc. No.M- 3986 of 2010(O&M) 2 order.
Sukhwinder Kaur has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son Jaspreet Singh. Admittedly, Sukhwinder Kaur was married to Paramjit Singh on 17.4.2006 at Ludhiana and they were blessed with a son namely Jaspreet Singh. The case of Sukhwinder Kaur is that Paramjit Singh and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by her parents at the time of her marriage. They started harassing her and maltreated her. She was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her minor son on 25.3.2007 and since then she was residing with her parents.
The case of the husband Paramjit Singh, on the other hand, is that soon after marriage, Sukhwinder Kaur had started demanding separate residence and insisted that till Paramjit Singh purchased a house in her name, she would not join him in the matrimonial home.
Thus, admittedly, the parties are residing separately and they will lead their evidence in support of their respective pleas before the trial Court. Provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated with a social object. The purpose is to protect the deserted wives and children from vagrancy and destitution. The provision is remedial rather than punitive. The trial Court has allowed Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance to Sukhwinder Kaur and has allowed Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance to minor Criminal Misc. No.M- 3986 of 2010(O&M) 3 Jaspreet Singh. The said amount cannot be said to be on a higher side especially in these days of high prices . There is no documentary evidence qua the income of Paramjit Singh and hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to enhance the quantum of interim maintenance. The amount of maintenance has merely been fixed by way of interim maintenance and in case Sukhwinder Kaur can lead evidence to the effect that she is entitled to more maintenance, the trial Court will pass the appropriate order at the time of final decision of the case. Paramjit Singh is stated to be running a PCO and hence, can be presumed to be capable of paying the interim maintenance allowed by the trial Court. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 12, 2010 anita