Lt. Col Manmeet Singh Through His Special Power Of Attorney Sh. Harbans Singh Sodhi v. Navan And Another

CRR(F)-541-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:054114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR(F)-541-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2024 Lt. Col. Manmeet Singh through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Harbans Singh Sodhi .... Petitioner

Versus

Navan Sonia and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. DPS Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitionerhusband assails the order dated 07.02.2024, passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala-Camp Court, Samana, in an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent No. 1-wife and Rs.15,000/- per month to minor son/respondent No. 2 herein (in total Rs.40,000/- per month), besides a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 10.12.2011 and one child/respondent No. 2 herein was born out of the said wedlock on 28.04.2014, who is currently in the care and custody of respondent No. 1. Due to temperamental differences, the parties could not cohabit together and started residing separately. Subsequently, the respondents have filed the present proceedings under Section 125 RISHU KATARIA 2024.04.23 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CRR(F)-541-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:054114 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that besides the above-said amount of impugned maintenance, the petitioner is already paying 7.5% of his salary to respondent No. 1-wife and 5.5% of his salary to his minor son/respondent No. 2 herein; as is evident from para 5 of the order dated 31.01.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Colonel, officiating Col. GS (HR) for GOC-in-C.

On a Court query as to whether this fact has been brought to the notice of the learned Family Court, concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that this was not done. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition, with liberty to raise all the pleas taken herein before the learned Family Court, concerned.

Ordered accordingly.

22.04.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2024.04.23 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.