High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/839/2023dismissed

Ajitpal Singh Chhabra v. Harshneet Kaur Chhabra And Another

2023-08-10Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta2 pages

CRR(F) 839/2023 2023:PHHC:105014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR(F) 839/2023 Date of decision: 10.08.2023.

Ajitpal Singh Chhabra ..................Petitioner Vs.

Dr. Harshneet Kaur Chhabra and another ..................Respondents

CORAM

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Saurav Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Nidhi Gupta, J.

Prayer in the present revision petition is for setting aside the order dated 4.3.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali whereby application filed by the respondents herein for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance @ Rs.50,000/- per month to respondent no.2/minor child of the petitioner.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.1 who is mother of respondent no.2 and wife of the petitioner, is a Doctor by profession and is earning handsomely. It is submitted that as per her own admission she is earning Rs.1.50 lacs per month. It is stated that accordingly impugned order whereby petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent no.2 who is a 10-year-old minor child (as is borne out from para 2 of the impugned order at page 23 of the paper book) is exorbitant. Heard ld. Counsel.

RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.08.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRR(F) 839/2023 2023:PHHC:105014 Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner has admitted before the ld. Family Court that he is a MBBS, DMRD, DNB and earning Rs.1.50 lacs per month and his annual income is Rs.18,43,121/-. When confronted with this finding, ld. Counsel for the petitioner admits the same to be true. Vide impugned order petitioner has been directed to pay only Rs.50,000/- per month to respondent no.2/minor son of the petitioner; and respondent no.1 has also been directed to contribute Rs.25,000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent no.2. No award for interim maintenance has been made in respect of respondent no.1/wife. In view of the above admitted facts, I find the impugned order to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the case. No ground for exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

10.08.2023.

(Nidhi Gupta) Joshi Judge RAJINDER PARSHAD JOSHI 2023.08.13 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document