Parvinderjeet Kaur And ANR v. Gurpratap Singh

Crl. Misc. No.M-36554 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-36554 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.12.2018 *** Parvinderjeet Kaur & Anr.

.. Petitioners Vs.

Gurpratap Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY

Present:

- Mr. A.S. Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner.

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

CRM 35270-2018 is allowed and salary certificate, Annexure P-7 of petitioner No.1 is taken on record.

The petitioners are seeking modification of orders dated 18.01.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on an application for interim maintenance filed in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and order dated 20.02.2018 passed in appeal by Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali vide which the order passed by the trial court was modified. The Chief Judicial Magistrate denied interim maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife and allowed Rs.5000/- to the child-petitioner No.2. In the appeal by the petitioners, the order was modified and interim maintenance awarded to the child was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent-husband is getting salary of more than Rs.80,000/- per month besides having income from agricultural sources, still the Courts below have denied interim maintenance to the wife and the amount awarded to the child is on lower side.

JITEN SHARMA 2018.12.13 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Crl. Misc. No.M-36554 of 2018 The relationship between the parties was not disputed. As per salary certificate, Annexure P-7, petitioner No.1 is working as Lecturer and getting about Rs.31000/- per month. The salary of the husband, as per Annexure P-5 is Rs 64688/- per month. It has also come on record that besides Rs.10000/- awarded to petitioner No.2 in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., petitioners were awarded Rs.10,000/- each per month in a petition under Hindu Marriage Act, out of which the amount awarded to the wife was stayed by this Court in another litigation. No material has been placed on record that the respondent is having agricultural income. The Courts below have only adjudicated the application for interim maintenance. The parties are yet to lead evidence. Petitioner No.

1 is earning and was rightly denied interim maintenance. It cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 10000/- per month awarded to petitioner No.2 pendente lite is on lower side. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Nothing contained hereinabove shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

December 07, 2018 (ANITA CHAUDHRY) Jiten JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Yes/ No Whether reportable Yes/ No JITEN SHARMA 2018.12.13 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document