High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11333/2017dismissed

Vaneet Gupta v. Saksham Gupta

2017-04-03Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-11333-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11333-2017 Date of Decision:- 03.04.2017 Vaneet Gupta ....Petitioner

Versus

Saksham Gupta ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Petitioner (husband) has filed the present revision petition against the orders dated 08.02.2017 (Annexures P-12 to P-14), passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, vide which the three objections petitions, filed by him, in the three applications filed by respondent under Section 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code, have been dismissed. As is evident from the record that the maintenance awarded to the minor child is `10,000/- per month from the present petitioner and further in the order dated 04.04.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, it has been observed that the contribution of mother cannot be more than `4,000/- per month as she has been giving personal care and attention to the minor child. The income of the petitioner has been taken `75,000/- per month and keeping in view this fact the maintenance of Naresh Kumar 2017.04.07 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh `10,000/- has been awarded.

CRM-M-11333-2017 -2Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing is trying to interpret in the order of revisional Court order that the maintenance of `4,000/- was to be paid by the respondent (wife). So, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the interpretation of learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected as it was an opinion of the revisional Court for the purpose of giving personal care and attention to the minor child and further no where it has been mentioned that the respondent is liable to pay the maintenance of `4,000/- per month. Otherwise also, keeping in view the fact that the income of the petitioner is about `75,000/- per month, the maintenance of `10,000/- is not on the higher side. No ground for interference is made out, therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. April 03, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.04.07 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh