Jagtar Singh vs Jasvir Kaur And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 15911 P&H

CRR(F)-1238-2022                                                            -1-

122            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRR(F)-1238-2022
                                              Date of Decision:06.12.2022

Jagtar Singh                                         ..... Petitioner
                                  Versus

Jasvir Kaur and another                              .......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:       Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

present revision petition impugning the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by

the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby

interim maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month has been granted to each

respondent i.e. wife and minor.

Succinctly facts of the case are that the petitioner was married

with respondent No.1 and thereafter, they were blessed with a son.

Thereafter, matrimonial discord took place between the husband and wife

and hence, the wife left the matrimonial home alongwith the minor. She

filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself

and the minor-son. Learned Family Court after hearing both the sides,

considered the income of the petitioner-husband between Rs.9,000/- to

10,000/- per month and allowed the petition by directing the petitioner to

pay Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the respondents i.e. the wife and the

minor-son vide impugned order dated 15.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present revision

petition.

1 of 3

Learned counsel for the the petitioner vehemently contended

that the learned Family Court has drawn a wrong conclusion in granting

interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the respondents. He

submits that it was the second marriage of the respondent-wife and third

marriage of the present petitioner. He has submitted that the learned Family

Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record that since the inception

of marriage, the respondent-wife was pressurizing the petitioner to transfer

the land in the name of her son from her previous marriage. However, the

petitioner-husband has shown his inability in accepting the same, which

became the bone of contention for the dispute between them. He submits

that the petitioner is working as a helper on the truck and earning hardly

Rs.9,000/- per month. He has submitted that the petitioner has the

responsibility of maintaining his two children from the first marriage and

old aged father, but the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the

same. He submits that in view of the submissions made, the impugned order

passed is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be set

aside.

Heard.

The relationship between the petitioner-husband and the

respondent-wife is not in dispute. As submitted before this Court, this was

the second marriage of the respondent-wife and third marriage of the

petitioner-husband. There is nothing on record to show that respondent-wife

has any independent source of income and hence, she is dependent upon the

income of her husband only. Besides herself she has the responsibility to

maintain minor son as well. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are for

preventing destitution and vagrancy. The petitioner is an able bodied

2 of 3

person. 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 and child. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Rajnesh Vs. Neha, 2021(2) SCC 324, the estranged wife has right of living

standard, which she was enjoying while living with the husband. The

petitioner-husband is earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Keeping in view the

facts and circumstance of the case and the income of the petitioner, the

learned Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month

to each of the respondents, which in any case cannot be said to be on higher

side. In the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in

the order passed by the learned Family Court, thus, the petition being

devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

                                                (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
06.12.2022                                          JUDGE
sharmila            Whether Speaking/Reasoned   :     Yes/No
                    Whether Reportable          :     Yes/Nos




                                 3 of 3