Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs Kavita And Another on 1 August, 2022
CRR(F)-304-2022(O&M) -1-
117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR(F)-304-2022(O&M)
Date of Decision: August 01, 2022
Ram Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Kavita and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Akashdeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL)
CRM-14649-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Main case
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the
present revision petition impugning the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtak, whereby it
has granted interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent
No.1-wife and @ Rs.3,000/-per month to respondent No.2-minor.
It has been contended that the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent -wife took place on 17.04.2021 and a son was also born
out of the wedlock on 29.10.2009. It is submitted that respondent-wife left
the matrimonial home also on 29.10.2009 and after ten years thereafter, i.e.
on 01.08.2019, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C. He submits that the learned Family Court has granted interim
maintenance illegally by taking into consideration the land owned by the
1 of 3
CRR(F)-304-2022(O&M) -2-
petitioner in village Kakrana. It is further submitted that the Court has not
taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had taken loan on the said
land. He has submitted that the respondent-wife has also filed a petition
under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act and the same is pending
adjudication and hence the view taken by the learned Family Court is
erroneous and the same deserves to be set aside.
Heard.
The relationship between the husband and wife is an admitted
fact. They are blessed with a son, who is now grown up. It is also an
admitted facts that it was the second marriage of the respondent-wife. As
per record of the case, petitioner is driver by profession. Learned Family
Court has assessed the income of the petitioner by placing reliance on the
jamabandi for the year 2011-12. No document regarding taking of loan, as
alleged, is placed on record. Income of the petitioner has been reasonably
inferred as Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner is an able bodied person.
The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are for preventing destitution and
vagrancy. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of
judgments, the husband is legally and morally responsible to look after his
wife. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh
Vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324, the wife has a right of living standard, which
she was enjoying while living with the husband.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case and the
income of the petitioner, which was taken as Rs.20,000/- per month, the
learned Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- (in total)
per month to the respondents, which cannot be said to be on higher side.
In the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this
2 of 3
CRR(F)-304-2022(O&M) -3-
Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court,
thus, the petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
August 01, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
meenuss JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable ? Yes/No
3 of 3
