Parveen Kumar Momi vs Kumari Monika @Geeta on 17 March, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parveen Kumar Momi vs Kumari Monika @Geeta on 17 March, 2010

Bench: Ram Chand Gupta

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH


                                        Crl. Misc. No.M- 7872 of 2010(O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 17.03.2010.


Parveen Kumar Momi.
                                                  ...... PETITIONER

                                      Versus
Kumari Monika @Geeta.
                                                  ...... RESPONDENTS



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA


Present:    Mr. K.K.Saini, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

                         ***


RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 04.07.2009, Annexure P1 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and order dated 24.12.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh granting interim maintenance to petitioners.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record.

Relationship between the parties is not disputed. Petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2, minor daughter. There is no dispute regarding the fact that respondents are living separate from the petitioner.

Crl.Misc.No.7872 of 2010 2

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not Doctor by profession and that he is only running a shop in village Jandiala for massage of bones and limbs and is earning Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/- per month and in fact, it is not a regular income and that he has also to look after his old parents and hence, it is contended that amount of maintenance as enhanced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 04.07.2009, in revision filed by respondent, is on the higher side.

I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order has been passed on the application for interim maintenance during the pendency of main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Though it has been alleged by respondent-wife that present petitioner is a Doctor by profession and is earning more than Rs.1,20,000/- per month and however, even if it is taken that he is skilled in doing massage of bones and limbs and is doing the said work, it cannot be believed that he is earning only Rs.3000/- to Rs.3500/- per month. He can earn handsome amount by doing the said job. In these days of high prices, it cannot be said that interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month for maintenance of both the respondents, as has been fixed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 04.07.2009, is on higher side. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the order dated 04.07.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, Annexure P1.

Hence, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) Crl.Misc.No.7872 of 2010 3 March 17, 2010. JUDGE 'om'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court