High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/25579/2016dismissed

Amarjeet v. Neelam And ANR

2016-08-29Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRM-M-25579-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25579-2016 Date of Decision:- 29.08.2016 Amarjeet ....Petitioner

Versus

Neelam and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Petitioner-husband has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure P-1) whereby learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul has modified the order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) and enhanced the maintenance amount from `2000/- to `2500/- per month to the respondents.

The Sessions Judge, Narnaul, while deciding the revision petition filed against the order dated 08.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) has taken into consideration the fact that the marriage of petitioner Amarjeet with respondent No.1 Neelam took place on 09.02.2011, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One son, namely, Pappu (respondent No.2) was born out from the said wedlock. Later on, the petitioner has refused to maintain the respondents and started beating to respondent-wife for non-fulfillment Naresh Kumar 2016.09.02 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh of demand of dowry. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on

CRM-M-25579-2016 -213.02.2012 and in the year 2012 the income of a casual labourer was not less than `6,000/- per month. The respondent (wife) has no source of income and she was supporting her minor child. Consequently, the revision petition filed by petitioner-husband was dismissed and maintenance amount was enhanced from `2,000/- to `2500/- per month. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner & going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge, Narnual, has rightly allowed the maintenance of `1500/- per month to respondent No.1 Neelam and `1000/- per month to respondent No.2 Pappu, vide order dated 08.12.2015 and the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective and does not require any interference.

Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 29, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2016.09.02 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh