Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Rohila vs Aman And Anr on 11 February, 2021
CRM-M-43973-2020 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-43973-2020 (O&M).
Decided on: February 11, 2021.
Manoj Rohila
.. Petitioner
VERSUS
Aman and another
.. Respondents
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
***
PRESENT Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
Through video conference
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for quashing the impugned
order dated 14.9.2018 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jind, as well as order judgment dated 6.1.2020
(Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, in criminal
revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
1 of 3
CRM-M-43973-2020 (O&M)
a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the children of the
petitioner namely Aman aged 11 years and Nitika aged 12 years through
their mother Neelam who is stated to have taken divorce from the petitioner.
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jind, had fixed the maintenance
@ Rs.10,000/- per month i.e. Rs.5,000/- per month for each child of the
petitioner. Thereafter, revision petitions were preferred by the children of
the petitioner as well as by the petitioner and the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jind, vide order dated 6.1.2020 (Annexure P-4), dismissed
both the petitions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
maintenance for the minor children @ Rs.5,000/- per month is excessive in
view of the fact that the petitioner will not be able to sustain himself for his
livelihood particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner is now married
having a wife, a son and his mother also. He has submitted that earlier wife
of the petitioner who is mother of the children is also working and therefore,
learned counsel has prayed for reduction of the amount which has been
fixed by the Courts below.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The marriage between the petitioner and Neelam Rani,
mother of the minor children who had filed petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C. is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that Aman and Nitika are the
minor children of the petitioner. The petitioner has a statutory obligation to
maintain his own children who are minor. So far as present case is
concerned, the maintenance has been fixed by the learned trial Court only to
2 of 3
CRM-M-43973-2020 (O&M)
the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month for each child. In today's time,
Rs.5,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by any stretch of
imagination. The plea of the petitioner that he is now remarried and has a
son, wife and mother to maintain cannot become a ground to wriggle out of
the statutory liability. The plea of the petitioner that his earlier wife is
working also cannot become a ground for reduction of the maintenance
which has been fixed by the learned Courts below although this Court is not
going into the factum as to whether his earlier wife is working or not.
In view of above, no ground is made out to interfere in
the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. The amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month for each child cannot be termed as excessive.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
February 11, 2021. JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
3 of 3
