Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohtash vs State Of Haryana And Another on 7 August, 2012
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.M.No. M-30299 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No. M-30299 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 7.8.2012
...
Rohtash
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
Sh. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate for
Sh. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for respondent No.2.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Challenge in this petition is the order dated 9.7.2011 passed by Sh. Rakesh Yadav, Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, vide which the revision petition preferred by the husband-petitioner against the order dated 5.3.2010 granting interim maintenance was dismissed.
Briefly stated, Savita filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance on the allegation that marriage between the parties has been solemnized according to the Hindu rites on 2.3.2008. Crl.M.No. M-30299 of 2011 -2- The husband has refused and neglected to maintain the wife. The wife claimed maintenance @ ` 4,000/- per month. In the said petition, an application for interim maintenance was moved and a sum of `1,500/- per month was granted as interim maintenance. The petitioner thereafter moved a revision petition against the order dated 5.3.2010. The said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 9.7.2011. The petitioner has challenged both the orders dated 5.3.2010 and 9.7.2011 in the present petition.
This Court vide order dated 4.10.2011 issued notice on deposit of `15,000/- with a view to explore the possibility of compromise before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The matter went before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre but the parties have not arrived at an amicable settlement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which wife refused to accompany the petitioner and consequently, that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was withdrawn. It is further submitted that petitioner is a poor person having no source of income. He has made all efforts to join the company of the wife, but she has not joined the company. So, she is not entitled to the concession of interim maintenance.
I have considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. The inter se relationship of husband and wife has not been disputed. The petitioner is legally and morally bound to maintain the wife. The main petition under Section 125 Crl.M.No. M-30299 of 2011 -3- Cr.P.C. is still pending and the rights of the parties are to be determined in that petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the trial Court while granting interim maintenance has ordered that wife shall complete the evidence after giving two opportunities, failing which the order of interim maintenance would cease.
I have considered the said submission. The interpretation of that clause is to be made by the trial Court and this Court should not give any verdict at this stage regarding those observations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that amount of `15,000/- paid to the wife should be adjusted towards the maintenance.
I have considered the said contention, but do not find any merit in that contention. The said amount was order to be paid simply to explore the possibility of compromise, as the wife is not an earning hand. So, that contention cannot be accepted.
No other argument has been advanced.
Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri ) 7.8.2012 Judge chugh