Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pankaj vs Neelam on 1 September, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Revision (F) No.137 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision (F) No. 137 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.09.2014
Pankaj
...Petitioner
Versus
Neelam
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. T.P.S. Teji, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially Smt. Neelam daughter of Bijender-respondent (wife), has moved a petition for maintenance against her husband-petitioner Pankaj son of Ram Dass, invoking the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. She has also moved an application for interim maintenance. The Judge Family Court has partly accepted the application for maintenance and directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of `10,000/- per month as interim maintenance, vide impugned order dated 21.05.2014.
2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband has preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, with his valuable help and after bestowal of Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision (F) No.137 of 2014 (O&M) -2- thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is not merit in this revision petition, in this context.
4. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the trial Judge is on higher side, lacks merit.
5. As is evident from the record that, the petitioner-husband is employed in Delhi Police, whereas the respondent-wife has no source of income. Taking into consideration the status of the parties, income of the petitioner-husband and other relevant facts, the trial Court has granted `10,000/- as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife, by way of impugned order dated 21.05.2014, which in substance is as under: -
"As regards vocation of the respondent (husband), he is employed in Delhi Police. The salary slip of the respondent (husband) for the month of March, 2014 has been produced on the file by the petitioner. As per the same, his gross salary is Rs.24091/- per month and after deductions, his carry home salary is Rs.21,662/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the said salary for the month of March, 2014 contains the pay and allowances for the part time duty performed by the respondent and the same cannot be taken as a regular feature of his income. However, the said contention is without any basis because there is nothing of the sort recorded in the said salary slip for the month of March, 2014. The pay of the respondent consists of the basic pay, grade pay, DA, HRA, Travelling allowances, ration money etc. There is no mention of any part time duty allowances in the said pay slip. In addition to the salary of the respondent, he also, prima facie, owns two acres of land regarding which, there is no denial on his part. It is so far well settled that the wife is entitled to the same status of living as that of her husband. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, status of the parties and their social background, earning of the respondent and also keeping in view the tremendous price rise of essential commodities, it would be just and expedient if an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month is awarded to the petitioner as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 11.3.2013. The litigation expenses have already been awarded to the petitioner separately.
In view of the above but without commenting on the merits of the case, the present application for interim maintenance is allowed and the respondent (husband) is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.10,000/-Kumar Naresh 2014.09.03 10:14
per month to the petitioner from the date of the application i.e. 11.3.2013."I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision (F) No.137 of 2014 (O&M) -3-
6. Meaning thereby, the Judge Family Court, has appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. However, during the course of final decision of main maintenance petition in case the husband proves that he is not earning so much, then, the trial Court would naturally fix the maintenance accordingly on the basis of the evidence. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Such impugned interim order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
7. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.
Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only.
September 01, 2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
naresh.k Judge
Kumar Naresh
2014.09.03 10:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh