Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab & ORS




   
  
 



"#$% &

 #$#'$( "#$% &

#)*$"

+*$,) &&& -*-*#$

'

+-.- #/'$0.1.$"#-)

&&& 2#$"

$-
% 34&+
+
 

   

   

 


  



 

  

  !

 "

# + &     ! 

 &'

  (
 $)* +  ,
 -. /

 (   01 0) 0$1 +2
31.

   5

  " 



 0& 0'

0$* +2
3 .

  

 5  "  !4

 
 !

    !
#' - . -6 .*$- $.$(

, .$- "

 5 

37 00083



  "  

 3 (  600083 

37

 

 5  "  

 3 (  $000083 

! 



 (9 0 $

00&



/ 

  :  /     

   ! 0)



 

 

  

 (4

 4 

   ( (

 

 ! 

  



 / ( ( :!

; !  

 (4 

 

4  ( 

( 4



 7

  <    =>

1$  $6 $

 &01 &)'3

 >
  

 

 (4



 %

%  



 

 
    

 00083  (  



 600083  (

    01 0) 0$ +2
31.



 (  

 !       0& 0'

0$* +2
3$ .

 

  

( < 

   $000083  ( ?   
  
  

 <  4

     +(4.

@ A 



( !

 (4

( 

( #!



    (4(  (

00*

1 0'

0$$

  &60083  (

(     ( !    

 ( 3

=  

&*00083   4 $000083  (  (

7


 9 

00*

 

!

B

  4

 

6 0$ 0$'+2
3$1.

=   (( /(   4     (4(

 ! 2 < 

= 4    

# $&000083

'

00083    (  



$0000083     



   

!(    ( ( (  

  ( 4  

  



 => ! 

)*  0$ $

00*

 01 >


 

   

<   

  +
4.

( #!

 06 $

; 

?

0$1

  



1600083  (

4 

4      

# > 

 

(

!

   

(  ;



    

 

 

!

     

( 

( #!





(   

(

 

 !#

 !



       

4

  

 ( (

#

 ( ! /       

     

<     !

    ! 

 
      4



 # ( 

(  

 
   

(    #

  ( 

 

     $6+.

  )  >

*  35 @ ;-!

(
 

       /

 5 = ( @ 

  
   






 


  


   

! 
     


  "
# =

35 @ ;-!

(   





 !  "

#  #  /

 5 = 9 D 

 C$

"



  




 
   




  

 


 


 


  "

  
   

            




 "    "      


    


 
 
    "

  

" 
 
  


 

  
 

   
  
  

  





 
  
"
  
    
 
 


# '

%

 4  

(4  

!

 

 ( /

  ( 

4   (  2    (  ( 4 !

 

  





< (  #

 (  <  < ( ( ! # !

    

   2( !

 4  2 

 

  

 4

< 4

 ! ( /   !

!

  ! (

) 7 

 
%  5 ! ;-!

( $!

% & '

%    

 &
) * 

+ 

'!
"  

 




 () * 
  "
 
   "
 
 

%
   "+
,  

 !
-  )

((,

+  




  
 


 




  





 


   

 


  
  
 
 
     
    "     .
 /0

 /1
   

  $
 - 2
3"


 
 
   
  "




 

    "




/

 "


"  
 "
  4


- 2

3

   
 
 
 


          
 
     4 


5 2


3
 




/4
 


 

 
"

 4
  
 


 - . 

)

/ +

 +

 0
  +6



% 7 ! !!!!! 
    
   





 



 
  
  


      

  .
 /0

 /1
       

  2+  





, %

0  

 +

.



4 
     
         8 
  

    

 
 (!!!   ,  
  " %
 

  %


 



    /"
       
 

    



%+%  +



-



$8
 
 
 "
 "  



 
 
 ()!*



1

+ 213 +  

 +

9.

 /% 
   
  

 
     
      
:+ ;
1
+  <95 
'293      0*  + 5     
  :         
   
        



 

    
  
  : 9'"=>>!& 10.

It is evident that respondent No.2 is well qualified and is currently employed in a well paying job. The facts of the case would be squarely covered by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur (2010) 15 SCC 372 and Anu Kaul

 vs. Rajeev Kaul (2009) 13 SCC 209 and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in X v. Y passed in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 78/2023 decided on 11.10.2023. The Courts below has duly considered the material placed before it for determining the quantum of maintenance. A careful and just balance has been drawn, keeping in view the spiralling inflation rates and the high cost of living corresponding to the reasonable needs of respondents No. 3, while maintenance qua respondent No.2 has been withdrawn. Raising a child in today's economy is an expensive affair. The lower Appellate Court has correctly enhanced the compensation qua respondent No.3 to Rs. 10,000/- per month. Moreso, respondent No.2 is already contributing towards maintaining respondent No.3. As such, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned orders which warrants interference by this Court.

$$ Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.



( 

 +. 

4  

 7+8

&

  +  ?

"
+.

7  / 8  F8 7**8 9) -) 2# -.1:

;#