Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madhu And Anr vs Rajesh Gupta on 3 September, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
-1-
CRR-718-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-718-2012 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 03.09.2014
Madhu and another
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rajesh Gupta
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate,
for the respondent.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.01.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga in a petition filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
The couple resided together and cohabited for some time and from their loins, a daughter, namely, Neha (respondent no.2) was born and thereafter differences cropped up.
The petitioners had earlier filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the respondent which PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CRR-718-2012 was allowed vide order dated 02.09.2002 whereby respondent was directed to pay ` 500/- per month to each of the petitioners from the date of filing of that application. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Court for enhancement of maintenance from ` 500/- to ` 5,500/- each per month.
The facts which were mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not necessary for decision of this petition.
In the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., it was pleaded that respondent was having monthly income of ` 25,000/-. However, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the National Highway Authority with regard to salary of respondent. As per the information provided to the petitioners, gross salary of the respondent was ` 43,269/- in the months of October/November, 2009. On that basis, each petitioner claimed the maintenance of ` 5500/- per month in 2004 from the respondent. The petitioners again obtained information, according to which the respondent had drawn gross salary of ` 66,800/- for the month of November, 2010 and his net pay was ` 50,620/-. It is pleaded by the petitioners that salary of respondent has now increased manifold and he is now getting salary @ ` 85, 652/- per month as is evident from salary slip (Annexure R-21).
Upon notice, the respondent put in appearance and pleaded that respondent no.1 is earning sufficient amount. Initially, petitioner no.1 was earning ` 7,500/- per month and now petitioner no.2 has started PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CRR-718-2012 earning. The maintenance sought by the petitioners is at the higher side. Petitioner no.1 is a shareholder in a company.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has made reference to various salary slips of the respondent which show that salary of the respondent has increased from time to time. When the application for enhancement of maintenance was moved, the respondent was getting more than ` 43,000/- a month and thereafter the same has increased to ` 66,000/- and now he is getting the salary of more than ` 85,000/- as per salary slip (Annexure R-21). No amount of maintenance has been paid to the petitioners. The lower Court has not considered the evidence on record, rather awarded maintenance at the lower side which does not commensurate with status of the parties. Learned counsel has further contended that application for maintenance was filed prior to amendment in Section 125 Cr.P.C. As per the old provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C, maximum ` 500/- per month could be awarded as maintenance whereas under the amended provision, there is no upper cap.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that he has come to the Court with a fair stand and referred to various annexures including the order dated 10.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. In the said order, it is recorded that vide fax message sent to Registrar Judicial, one Madhu Bala (petitioner no.1 herein), partner, Well Done Realtors, 3063, Sector 27-D, PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CRR-718-2012 Chandigarh offered a sum of ` 1,60,00,000/- for buying a property. Learned counsel has further contended that salary of petitioner no.1 has increased manifold and she is having sufficient income and, therefore, not entitled to the maintenance. The petitioners have not filed any revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, rather have approached this court straightway by filing the present petition.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
This matter, involving payment of maintenance to the destitute wife and her daughter, who is stated to be pursuing her study, has been pending since 2000. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has enhanced the maintenance from ` 500/- to ` 5,500/- for each of the petitioners, but has not taken into consideration the status of parties and salary of the respondent. Admittedly, there is evidence on record specifically before this Court that gross salary of the respondent was ` 43,269/- in the months of October/November, 2009. The respondent got gross salary of ` 66,800/- in the month of October, 2010 and after deduction, he received ` 55,620/- as is evident from salary slip (Annexure P-4). In the month of June, 2012, gross salary of the respondent was ` 85,652/- and after deduction, he got salary of ` 50,924/- as is evident from pay slip (Annexure R-21). The average monthly salary of the respondent appears to be more than ` 60,000/- for all periods. In any case, it was never less than ` 42,000/-, when application for enhancement of maintenance was moved. The PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -5- CRR-718-2012 respondent started deductions from his salary under various heads which resulted into decrease in his carry home salary.
It is not the case set up by the respondent that he has to take care of other members of his family whereas case of petitioners is that they are having meager income. The enhanced maintenance awarded to the petitioners does not commensurate with the status of the parties.
For the reasons recorded above, this Court deems it fit and proper that survival of petitioner no.1-wife and petitioner no.2-daughter who has attained majority, could not be put on stake on hyper-technical plea that they must approach the Additional Sessions Judge instead of approaching this Court by way of revision. Moreover, powers of Sessions Court and High Court are concurrent under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the spirit behind the provisions of law for maintenance, this Court deems it fit and proper that at least, reasonable maintenance should have been awarded in favour of the petitioners considering the salary of respondent. Vide salary slip (Annexure R-21), the respondent is shown to have drawn monthly salary of ` 85,652/- in the month of June, 2012. It is not only a moral duty but also a legal duty cast upon the respondent to maintain his legally wedded wife-petitioner no.1 and daughter-petitioner no.2.
In these circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper that impugned order dated 18.01.2012 be modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay ` 20,000/- to petitioner no.1-Madhu and ` 10,000/- to petitioner no.2-Neha as maintenance from the date of filing PARVEEN KUMAR 2014.09.08 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -6- CRR-718-2012 the application for enhancement of maintenance. Ordered accordingly.
Disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
03.09.2014 (Paramjeet Singh)
parveen kumar Judge
PARVEEN KUMAR
2014.09.08 18:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document