Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Kaur vs Harvinder Singh on 11 March, 2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-8700 of 2013 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-8700 of 2013
Date of decision: March 11, 2014.
Rajwinder Kaur
... Petitioner
v.
Harvinder Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Shri Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Vide this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-wife seeks modification of order dated 18.2.2012 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala granting maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- as also order dated 17.1.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala whereby her revision petition was partly allowed and amount of maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per month.
2. It is claimed that maintenance even raised to Rs.6,000/- is highly inadequate, keeping in view the needs of the petitioner and capacity to pay of the respondent-husband, who is getting salary of Rs.29,617/- per month. Enhancement of amount of maintenance allowance has been sought to Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of application.
3. This petition has been strongly resisted by the respondent claiming that she has already got enhancement in quantum of maintenance Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-8700 of 2013 -: 2 :- from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month whereas the husband, a Lance Naik in the Army, has basic salary of Rs.8510/- per month and has other responsibilities to discharge.
4. Marriage between the parties and separate residence away from the matrimonial home of the petitioner is not questioned. As per salary certificate (Ex.P1) on basic pay of Rs.8510/- the respondent-husband is getting a salary of Rs.29,617/- per month. The court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 18.2.2012 had allowed maintenance of Rs.3,000/- p.m. till re-marriage of the petitioner. The petitioner is residing with her parents in village Khaira Kalan, Yamuna Nagar since 17.4.2008. It is also not in question that the petitioner is not an earning hand. Even claim of the respondent-husband is that she is not mentally fit and as a necessary corollary is not in a position to earn either.
5. When concededly, gross salary credited in the account of the respondent is Rs.29,617/- p.m. and there is no issue born out of this wedlock to be supported by the respondent, the maintenance amount enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.6,000/- p.m. vide order dated 17.1.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition lacks appreciation of factual matrix as also the attending circumstances. When the respondent- husband is not owning any disclosable liability other than to maintain his estranged wife, i.e., the petitioner and is earning Rs.29,617/-, there is no reason to allow her at least 1/3rd carry home salary of the respondent- husband. When questioned on claim of the petitioner for enhancement to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, counsel for respondent-husband except for contending that it was on the higher side, could not reason out any satisfactory reply.
6. It is important to note that though the revisional court came to a firm finding that maintenance allowance allowed to the petitioner to the Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-8700 of 2013 -: 3 :- tune of Rs.3,000/- p.m. by the trial court was "very less" and the prices of essential commodities were rising every day, thus, justifying increase in the quantum of maintenance allowance, increased the same to Rs.6,000/- p.m. only and did not increase to Rs.10,000/- p.m., as was demanded by the petitioner.
7. Relevant portion of the impugned order of 17.1.2013 is reproduced as below:-
"... In view of the document Ex.P1, it apparent that the basic pay of the respondent is Rs.8510/- and gross credit of the salary in the account of the respondent is Rs.29,617/- per month. No issue is born out during the wedlock of the parties. Learned trial court awarding the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.3000/- per month, which is very less. Now the price of the commodities are touching the sky and it would be very difficult for a person to live his livelihood in the sum of Rs.3000/- per month. Therefore, in the said circumstances, it would be appropriate to enhance the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.6000/- per month w.e.f. filing of the petition before the learned trial court."
8. Even when version of the respondent-husband when he appeared as RW1 is evaluated and analyzed in the interface of the evidence produced by the petitioner wife, when she appeared as PW1 and had produced her father Narinder Singh as PW2, there remains no dispute that the petitioner-wife has no source of livelihood and has nothing to bank upon except for monthly maintenance amount from the husband. The respondent- husband has also no liability legally dischargeable other than payment of maintenance to his estranged wife, i.e., the petitioner. When the respondent is getting monthly salary to the tune of Rs.29,617/-, there is no reason for him to deny at least 1/3rd of the said income for his wife, who is disadvantaged and is living in destitution. She has no claim on her father when her husband is an earning hand and is earning handsomely as well.
9. Contention of counsel for the respondent that it is not need of Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-8700 of 2013 -: 4 :- the petitioner but is greed of hers which has persuaded her to file this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has no merit. Appropriate maintenance commensurate to her needs keeping in view the paying capacity of her husband, is her legitimate right which should not be denied to her. No element of greed should be seen into genuine needs of the wife.
10. Consequently, accepting the petition, monthly amount of maintenance is enhanced from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.10,000/- from the date of application, as has been ordered by the courts below.
[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] March 11, 2014. Judge kadyan
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh