High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR(F)/367/2020dismissed

Prateek Chauhan v. Baby Kaira Through Her Mother

2020-08-14Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

-1CRR(F)-367 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-367 of 2020 Date of Decision: 14.08.2020 Prateek Chauhan

...Petitioner

Versus

Baby Kaira and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

Through this revision, petitioner, father of respondent No.1 and husband of respondent No.2, has challenged order dated 03.03.2020, directing him to make payment of `30,000/- as interim maintenance to respondent No.1, who is in custody of respondent No.2. Learned counsel inter alia contends that as per affidavits submitted before the trial Court, petitioner is earning `91,850/- per month, whereas respondent-wife is earning more than `1.00 lakh. Therefore, interim maintenance fixed by the trial court in a petition of respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is on the higher side. Petitioner has his old-age widow mother to maintain, besides his own expenses for day-today affairs. Therefore, maintenance amount may be reduced in between RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.17 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRR(F)-367 of 2020 `10,000/- to `15,000/-.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions, this Court finds instant revision completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow.

This Court while exercising its revisional powers has very limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any such infirmity in the impugned order.

The trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Dismissed.

(RAMENDRA JAIN) August 14, 2020 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2020.08.17 13:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document