Sudesh Kumar vs Sonia And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 600 j&K

                                                                    Sr. No. 05

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
                           (Through Virtual Mode Srinagar)

                                               CRM(M) No. 69/2022

Sudesh Kumar                                                      .....Petitioner(s)


                        Through: Mr. A.P.Malik, Advocate.

                   Vs


Sonia and others                                               ..... Respondent(s)

                        Through: Ms. Pariksha Parmar, Advocate.


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
                                  JUDGMENT

1. The trial court awarded interim maintenance to the respondent no.1 to the

tune of Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.3000/- per month each in favour of

the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner herein and the

respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are the minor son and daughter respectively of the

petitioner and respondent no.1.

2. The revision petition filed against the interim maintenance was challenged

before the court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The

revisional court did not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial

court and dismissed the petition. The present petition has been filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashment of the orders passed by the trial

court as well as the revisional court.

3. The ground taken by the petitioner herein is that the courts below have not

taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is required to maintain

his mother and the two brothers also. It is also submitted that no

document was placed on record in support of the petition that the

petitioner had that much of earning which could persuade the courts

below to give maintenance to the respondents to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has indeed argued on the lines of

the averments contained in the present petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that there is no

error in the orders passed by the courts below. This court should not slash

down the maintenance as awarded by the trial court and upheld by the

revisional court in the present petition.

6. This court can interfere into the orders passed by the trial court and the

revisional court only when the court is of the view that there is abuse of

process of law which may require correction in the present petition. The

trial court after going through the pleadings of the parties and the

arguments of the counsels for the parties has granted maintenance in

favour of the respondents herein.

7. This court cannot normally interfere into the factual aspects of the case

which persuaded the trial court to grant maintenance in favour of the

respondents. The interim maintenance is a temporary measure so as to

provide some succor to the respondents. The trial court after taking into

consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has granted

interim maintenance in favour of the respondents herein and the revisional

court has also upheld the same after elaborate discussion. The petitioner

herein cannot shirk from his responsibility to maintain the respondents

during the pendency of the petition which is yet to be adjudicated upon

finally by the trial court. The court does not prima facie find any reason to

interfere in the order passed by the courts below.

8. The reliance by the counsel for the petitioner herein on the judgment

dated 23.02.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No. 1163 of 2009 titled 'Sanjeev Gupta v. Shalini Gupta' (photo copy of

the judgment placed on record) does not help the petitioner in any

manner. In this case the High Court in exercise of power conferred under

Article 227 of the Constitution had enhanced the interim maintenance

from Rs.750/- to Rs.5000/- per month and also enhanced the litigation

expenses from Rs.1100/- to Rs.10,000/-. The Supreme Court held that the

High Court was wrong in enhancing the maintenance amount though no

evidence was on record. The order was passed by the Supreme Court in

the petition arising out of proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. The

Apex Court only maintained that the High court could not enhance the

maintenance in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution

and nothing more in the case in hand.

9. The court finds no reason to exercise its inheritance power to set aside the

orders impugned in the present petition. The petition is without merit and

is dismissed.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge

Jammu 31.03.2023 Shammi Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No