Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Kiran Bala And Another on 23 January, 2023
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
114
Date of Decision: 23.1.2023
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
Balbir Singh
---Petitioner
versus
Kiran Bala and another
---Respondents
CRR(F)-675 of 2022
Kiran Bala
---Petitioner
versus
Balbir Singh
---Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR(F)-207 of 2022
for respondent in CRR(F) 675 of 2022
Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRR(F)-675 of 2022
for respondents in CRR(F)207 of 2022
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By this common order, above-mentioned petitions are
being disposed of as these have arisen out of order dated
13.10.2021.For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CRR(F)-
1 of 7
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
207 of 2022.
2. The petitioner, through the instant petition, is seeking
setting aside/modification of order dated 13.10.2021 whereby
Principal Judge Family Court, Ludhiana has allowed application under
Section 127 Cr.P.C. of the respondent-wife and enhanced amount of
maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 10,000/- from the date of
application i.e. 24.2.2014.
3. The petitioner solemnized marriage with respondent on
20.5.1997 and out of this wedlock one son namely Simranjit Singh
was born on 21.7.1998. The petitioner on 25.1.2000 preferred a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was
withdrawn on 27.7.2000. The respondent preferred petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 17.1.2001 and respondent was awarded
maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month vide order dated 5.9.2007. A
petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce
by mutual consent came to be filed, however, it could not fructify
because respondent did not come forward to make her statement.
Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated
15.1.2006 dissolved marriage between the parties and appeal bearing
No. FAO-M-39 of 2008 is still pending before this court.
4. The respondent preferred application under Section 127
Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance. The application was
filed on 24.2.2014. The Family Court vide impugned order dated
13.10.2021 has allowed application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. of the
respondent and enhanced amount of maintenance from Rs. 1000/- to
Rs. 10,000/-. The amount of maintenance has been enhanced from the
2 of 7
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
date of application i.e. 24.2.2014.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage
between the parties stands dissolved and appeal seeking setting aside
of decree of divorce is pending before this Court. The marriage was
solemnized in 1997 and order of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- at this
belated stage is excessive and disproportionate to income of the
petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that amount of
maintenance could not be enhanced with effect from the date of
application whereas it should be from the date of order.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that appeal of
the respondent is still pending before this Court and she during this
entire period had looked after her son who is suffering from chronic
disease. The respondent has incurred a huge amount on the treatment
of her son. A sum of more than Rs. 9 lacs is pending as arrears
against the petitioner, however, he is neither making payment towards
maintenance nor coming forward for settlement one or another way.
7. I have heard arguments of both sides and perused the
records.
8. The relevant extracts of order dated 13.10.2021 read as:-
"Now the question arises as to what amount of the
maintenance allowance from Rs.1,000/- per month
to applicant no.1 already granted vide order dated
05.09.2007, is to be enhanced at this stage because
the applicants have filed this application for
altering the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- per
month to Rs.10,000/- per month for the applicant
3 of 7
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
no.1 and from Rs.700/- per month to Rs.15,000/-
per month for the applicant no.2 under section 127
of Cr.P.C referred here-in-above on account of
arising of prices of every good after passing the
said order dated 05.09.2007 to live in the hard
time of now-a-days. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondent raised to the effect that
the quantum of the maintenance already granted to
the applicant no.1 vide said order dated
05.09.2007 cannot be altered for enhancement of
the same in favour of the applicant no.1, is not
found to be sustainable from any angle as per rival
stands of the parties and also of rising prices of
every commodity from day to day needs of every
one after passing the order dated 05.09.2007 in
favour of the applicants and never reversing the
same against the applicants even as per views
taken in Nitaben DineshKumar Oza Vs.. Dibesh
Kumar Ishwarlal Oza and another 2016(2) Crl.CC
785(Gujrat), Joy Varghese Vs. Leelamma 2007(4)
Crl.CC081 (Kerala)(DB) and Shiva Kumar
Pradhan Vs. Meera Rawat and another 2016(4)
Crl.CC437(Sikkim) referred by learned counsel for
the respondent. The respondent being government
employee admittedly in Irrigation Department of
Punjab has been drawing his salary more than
4 of 7
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
Rs.60,000/- to 70,000/- per month but has
concealed the same deliberately on record
otherwise must have brought his salary record on
the record for showing his bona-fide and resulting
of which, it concluded from the rival circumstances
of the parties that the applicant no.1 is entitled to
enhanced amount of maintenance more than of
Rs.10,000/- per month but has claimed enhanced
amount of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month
only from the date of filing this application filed on
24.02.2014 till entitlement of the same by the
applicants from the respondent as per view taken
in Girdhar Lal Vs. Shashi Kumari, 2017(2) CCC-
745(HP), Rajnesh Vs. Neha and anr 2021-SCC-
324, Seema and another Vs.Gourav Juneja with
Gourav Juneja Vs. Seema and another
2019(2)RCR(Crl)219,Madhu and another Vs.
Rajesh Gupta 2019(4) RCR(Crl.)737, Smt.
Chitrawati and others Vs. Azad Singh 2003 (2)
SimLJ 1719 and Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh
Salkan 2018(4) RCR (Crl.)395, referred by learned
counsel for the applicants for altering the
maintenance toward higher side in favour of the
applicant no.1 and resulting of which, the said
issues are decided partly to the said effect in
favour of the applicant no.1 and resultantly
5 of 7
against the respondent.
Relief
The application bearing CNR No.
PBLDF40006592019, Filing No.156 dated
27.04.2015 and Regd. No.CRM/49 of 2019 of the
applicants as per brief discussion about the
aforesaid issues, succeeds and is allowed but the
application bearing CNR No.
PBLDF40006492019, Filing No.151 dated
10.08.2016 and Regd.No.CRM/44 of 2019 under
section 127 of Cr.P.C of the respondent fails and is
dismissed, with the directions to the respondent to
pay the maintenance allowance @ Rs.10,000/- per
month to the applicant no.1 from the date of this
application filed on 24.02.2014 till entitlement of
the same by the applicant no.1 from the
respondent, in the interest of justice to said effect
to keep balance between the parties. The copy of
this order be also placed on record of the
application under section 127 of Cr.P.C clubbed
with the present application. The file of the present
application with the record of clubbed application
be consigned to Record room, Samrala."
9. It is undisputed fact that till date decree of divorce has
not attained finality. It is further undisputed fact that a sum of Rs.
1000/- vide order dated 5.9.2007 was awarded as maintenance to
respondent-wife which in the present scenario cannot be sufficient,
6 of 7
CRR(F)-207 of 2022
thus, the court below has rightly enhanced maintenance amount from
Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner being husband is morally,
socially, ethically and statutorily liable to maintain his wife as well
children. The petitioner is attempting to deflect from his
responsibility which can neither be appreciated nor approved by this
Court.
10. The argument of the petitioner that amount of
maintenance in terms of Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be enhanced only
from the date of passing of order is misplaced because it is settled
proposition of law that nobody can be put to a disadvantage position
on account of lapse on the part of court or fault of another person.
The respondent indubitably preferred application seeking
enhancement in 2014 which remained pending till 2021 and for this
long delay of non-adjudication, the respondent cannot be deprived of
her substantial right of maintenance. It is most relevant and inevitable
to keep in mind that earlier maintenance awarded was minuscule i.e.
Rs. 1000/- per month which in any way cannot be considered as just,
reasonable and fair.
11. Learned counsel could not advance any plausible reason
to further enhance the amount of maintenance awarded to the
respondent(wife), thus, her petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. Both petitions stand dismissed.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
23.1.2023
paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
