Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 1 April, 2026
CRR(F)-1441-202
2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
103+221
CR
CRR(F)-1441-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.04.2026
Sachin Kumar
...... Petitioner
V/S
Jyoti Kumari
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Lakshya Aggarwal, Advocate for petitioner
petitioner.
None for respondent.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)
CRM-8310-2026 2026 This is an application u/s 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for placing on record the affidavit of petitioner controverting the affidavit of respondent dated 15.12.2025 along with Annexure A A-1 & A-2.
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Accompanying affidavit along with Annexure A A-1 and A-2 2 is taken on record, subject to just exceptions.
Application is disposed of accordingly. CRR(F)1441-2023 2023
1. Petitioner - Sachin Kumar has filed present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against impugned order dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul ul whereby interim maintenance has been granted in favour of respondent-Jyoti Jyoti Kumari to SUNIL DEVI 2026.04.06 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1441-202 2023 (O&M) -2- the tune of Rs.9,000/-
Rs. per month wrongly without proper appreciation of the facts of the case with further prayer to stay the operation of impugned order during the pendency of present revision petition.
2. As per the brief facts of the case,, Jyoti Kumari (petitioner petitioner in the main case) got married marri with Sachin Kumar (respondent respondent in the main case case) on 11.12.2021. On account of matrimonial dispute, they starte started d residing separate.
Respondent-Jyoti Jyoti Kumari (wife) filed applicatio application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance along with application for grant of interim maintenance. It was alleged that respondent-husband respondent is serving in Panchayat Samiti, Rajasthan and drawing monthly monthly salary to the tune of Rs.
Rs.50,000/- per month alongwith h rental income, whereas the petitioner-wife wife had no source of income to maintain herself, thus claiming interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.50,000 Rs.50,000/- per month along with litigation expenses.
3. The respondent-husband respondent (petitioner petitioner in the present case case) contested the petition by levelling allegations on the character of his wife. It was alleged that she is working in a private bank and getting salary to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per month. Therefore, she has sufficient means to maintain herself and opposed the grant of interim maintenance.
4. After hearing arguments, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Narnaul allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance by passing order dated 24.08.2023, vide which the wife was granted interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.9,000/-
Rs.9 per month along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.6,000/-.
Feeling aggrieved of this order, present criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioner-husband petitioner (respondent respondent in the main case case).
SUNIL DEVI 2026.04.06 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1441-202 2023 (O&M) -3-
5. Learned counsel for petitioner-husband petitioner husband argued that the facts of the case were not rightly appreciated by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,, Narnaul and the interim maintenance has been granted to the tune of Rs.9,000 Rs.9,000/--
per month, which is highly excessive. Learned counsel for petitioner petitioner-husband husband referred to the pay slip of March 2023 (Annexure P P-4),, according to which gross ss salary is to the tune of Rs.30,576/-
Rs. per month and after deduction the carry home salary is mentioned as Rs.22,936/-.
Rs.22,936 . It is pointed out that at the time of marriage, petitioner-husband petitioner husband had raised loan for the purpose of marriage as well as buying gold for his wife to the tune of Rs.
Rs.5,25,000/- and he is making payment of monthly installment of Rs.10,020 10,020/-. After this deduction, the petitioner-husband husband is left with meager salary to meet his expenses. Petitioner husband is to look after his old mother and grandfather and he is to bear their medical expenses. The respondent-wife respondent wife claimed that earlier she was working but had left the job before marriage. Even at present she has taken up the job. Therefore, interim maintenance granted in favou favour of respondent-wife wife to the tune of Rs.9,000/- per month along with litigation expenses is without justification. Therefore, present revision may be accepted and the impugned order dated 24.08.2023 may y kindly be set aside.
6. Today, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. It is a matter of record that present petitioner-Sachin pet Sachin Kumar and Jyoti Kumari got married on 11.12.2021 and on account of matrimonial dispute, they got separated and present litigation started.
started Jyoti Kumari filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. for grant of maintenance from her husband. Out ooff this wedlock, no child is SUNIL DEVI 2026.04.06 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1441-202 2023 (O&M) -4- born. Both husband and wife have levelled serious allegations against each other, which are matter of trial. It is an admitt admitted fact that present petitioner-- husband is serving in Panchayat Samiti Kothputli and as per pay slip of March 2023, his gross salary is Rs.30,576/-
Rs.30 and after deduction it is to the tune of Rs.22,936/- per month. There is nothing on record to show that at present respondent-wife wife is earning hand. Admittedly, she was doing job prior to marriage but thereafter she s had left the job. In case the respondent respondent-wife wife has again taken up the job, that is matter of trial. The petitioner can also file appropriate application for modification of impugned order vide which interim maintenance has been granted. For the time bein being, g, considering the salary of petitioner-husband, husband, the interim maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court Narnaul to the tune of Rs.9 Rs.9,000/- per month along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.6,000/- is justified and the same do does es not require any interference. With this observation, present criminal revision preferred by the petitioner-husband petitioner husband is accordingly declined. My above observations are made for the purpose of disposal of present criminal revision and it will have no be bearing aring on the merits of the case and the same be decided on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
(AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE 01.04.2026.
Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No SUNIL DEVI 2026.04.06 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document