Punjab-Haryana High Court
Onkar Singh vs Lachhmi Alias Gursharan Kaur on 29 July, 2022
CRM-M-33224-2022 -1-
126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33224-2022
Date of Decision: 29.7.2022
Onkar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Lachhmi @ Gursharan Kaur .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the
present petition impugning the order dated 13.5.2022 passed in Revision
Petition No.299/2021 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge,
Rupnagar, whereby, application of the petitioner for condonation of delay
for filing for revision for setting aside the order dated 5.10.2019, was
dismissed.
As per facts of the case, the petitioner was married with the
respondent and thus, the relationship between them is an admitted fact. Due
to the matrimonial discord, both of them started living separately and thus,
respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of
maintenance, which was decided by the learned SDJM, Sri Anandpur Sahib
on 19.12.1997. The Court allowed the petition and the petitioner was
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent-wife
holding income of the petitioner as Rs.4,000/- per month at that time. This
order was never assailed further and thus, attained finality. Thereafter, the
respondent-wife filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for
enhancing the maintenance of Rs.500/- per month granted to her. Learned
1 of 4
Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nangal, after hearing both the parties
observed that the maintenance granted vide order dated 19.12.1997 is on the
lower side and thus, in the prevailing facts and circumstance, the enhanced
from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per month vide order dated
5.10.2019. The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed revision petition
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar with a delay of 582
days. Learned Additional Sessions Judge appreciated the arguments raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner for condoning the delay of 582 days
and hearing the revision on merits, vide impugned order dated 13.5.2022
dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of filing the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that the view taken by the learned Court below in dismissing the application
for condonation of delay and in not hearing the petition on merit is totally
illegal and deserves to be set aside. He submits that the petitioner is 75 years
of age and a heart patient and it is on account of the same, the delay of 582
days occurred. He submits that the petitioner is senior citizen and suffering
from various ailments and besides this there was ample evidence that
respondent-wife has agricultural land in her name and thus, has an
independent source of income, but the learned Court below has failed to
appreciate the same and thus, drawn a wrong conclusion in granting
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife. He has
submitted that the revisional Court should have condoned the delay of 582
days and should have heard the revision on merits.
Heard.
The relationship between the petitioner-husband and
2 of 4
respondent-wife are not in dispute. Admittedly, the maintenance of Rs.500/-
per month was granted to the wife way back on 19.12.1997. Thereafter, she
approached the Court by way of petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for
alteration in the maintenance allowance. The learned Court taking into
account the overall facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the age of the
petitioner, income of both the petitioner and respondent and living
conditions as on date, enhanced the same to Rs.5,000/- per month vide order
dated 5.10.2019. This Court does not find any infirmity in the conclusion
drawn by the learned SDJM, Nangal. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a
revision petition with a delay of 582 days against the order dated 5.10.2019.
The learned revisional Court has taken into consideration the cause of delay
in filing the revision petition. As per the finding of revisional Court, delay
in filing the revision was not 582 days, but it was more than 680 days. The
only ground emphasized by the petitioner before the revisional Court as
well as before this Court is on account of his old age. This Court does not
find any force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Looking into the merits of the case, the enhancement made by
learned SDJM, Nangal was from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- per
month, which was after a period of about 22 years. The Court cannot shut its
eyes to the prevailing circumstance 22 years ago and the living condition in
this period which has enormously changed. Keeping in view the same, there
is no infirmity whatsoever in enhancing the maintenance of Rs.500/- per
month to Rs.5,000/- per month. 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
3 of 4
responsible to look after his wife. This Court does not find any merit in
condoning the delay as well as hearing the petition on merits as the
enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.5,000/- after a
period of 22 years cannot be said to be an illegal or exorbitant in any
manner. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
29.7.2022 JUDGE
sharmila
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
