Ravi vs Anu
2022 Latest Caselaw 7984 P&H

CRR(F)-140-2020                                                             -1-

110         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CRR(F)-140-2020 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 28.7.2022

Ravi                                                 ..... Petitioner
                                 Versus

Anu                                                  .......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:    Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

CRM-4173-2020

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed. Delay of 19 days in filing the same is condoned.

CRM-4174-2020

Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-26593-2022

The application is allowed. Annexure P-3 is taken on record.

Main case

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

present revision petition impugning the order dated 14.10.2019 passed by

the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, whereby interim

maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month has been awarded to the respondent-

wife.

As per facts of the case, the petitioner was married with the

respondent on 28.11.2017. The petitioner is a qualified person and has done

LLB and MBA and is practising as a Lawyer. After the marriage, due to the

matrimonial discord, rift has occurred between the husband and wife and

they started living separately. The respondent-wife filed a petition under

1 of 3

Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of maintenance. Vide order dated

14.10.2019, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of

Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. This

Court vide order dated 3.2.2020, directed the petitioner to place on record

the list of assets alongwith income tax return to establish that he is not

earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month. In pursuance to the same, the

petitioner has filed his affidavit (Annexure P-3).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

respondent-wife herself deserted the matrimonial home and due to the same,

she is not entitled for the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He has

submitted that the petitioner is a junior Lawyer and does not have income as

presumed by the learned Family Court, whereas, the respondent is well

qualified and possessing a degree of MCA. He also contends that she is

doing a private job and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. He has submitted

that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the same and thus,

drawn a wrong conclusion in granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per

month.

Heard.

The relationship between the husband and wife is an admitted

fact. The petitioner is a Lawyer by profession. In pursuance to the order

passed by this Court on 3.2.2020, the petitioner has placed on record the

affidavit pertaining to his income, which also shows that his monthly

income is Rs.30,000/-. The petitioner is an able bodied person and well

qualified. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are for preventing

destitution and vagrancy. As per the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court

2 of 3

in plethora of judgments, the husband is legally and morally responsible to

look after his wife. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the wife is earning and thus, she is able to maintain herself.

This Court rejects the argument raised and find no force in the same. 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. If the wife is earning, it cannot

operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance to be paid by the husband.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case and the income of

the petitioner, which was taken as Rs.30,000/35,000/- per month, the

learned Family Court has granted the maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month

to the wife. 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)
28.7.2022                                         JUDGE
sharmila
                   Whether Speaking/Reasoned         :     Yes/No
                   Whether Reportable                :     Yes/No




                               3 of 3