Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Kumar Khullar vs Vidyawanti Khullar on 11 September, 2013
CRR(F) No. 18 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRR(F) No. 18 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.09.2013
Virender Kumar Khullar .....Petitioner
Versus
Vidyawanti Khullar ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is to the award of ` 10,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent-mother passed by the Family Court, Gurgaon.
It is basically contended that in the arbitration proceedings with regard to division of property of the joint family, the arbitrator passed interim directions on 19.11.2012 on the mutual agreement in which petitioner agreed to pay ` 10,000/- to the respondent-mother and also to the petitioner before the arbitration proceedings, Neeraj Khullar, younger brother of the petitioner.
That order was valid for one year when it was passed. Arbitration proceedings are still going on.
Petitioner's counsel contends that petitioner is a poor person and earning only ` 20,000/- per month. This contention cannot be accepted because petitioner has himself agreed to pay Jitender Kumar 2013.09.13 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR(F) No. 18 of 2013 (O&M) -2- ` 10,000/- to respondent-mother before the arbitration proceedings and the Family Court has rightly held that the grant of this amount during arbitration proceedings is no bar to award of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Due care has also been taken by the Family Court that any payment made otherwise towards maintenance shall be adjustable towards the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the sons of the respondent should share responsibility of making payment of maintenance to their mother. I am of the view that in case mother has grievance only against one of the sons, there is no such bar to claim maintenance against him.
Dismissed.
September 11, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
Jitender Kumar
2013.09.13 17:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh