← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/547/2017disposed of

Ravinder @ Ravi v. Ravi Bala @ Neeru

2018-11-29Ms. Justice Jaishree Thakur3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.11.2018 1.

Ravinder @ Ravi

...Petitioner

Versus

Ravi Bala @ Neeru

...Respondent

***** 2.

CRM-M-10795-2016 Ravinder @ Ravi

...Petitioner

Versus

Ravi Bala @ Neeru

...Respondent

***** CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Kaliramna, Advocate, for the respondent.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J.(ORAL) 1.

This order of mine shall dispose of the above referred two petitions. For brevity, facts are being taken from CRM-M-547-2017. 2.

This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to challange the impugned orders passed by the Courts below whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance under Section

125 Cr.P.C as well as under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has been granted interim maintenance @ ` 3,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and @ ` 8,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the respondent has also been allowed rent ` 5,000/- per month in a petitoin filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which amount has been reduced to ` 3,000/- per month under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is contended that in all he has been directed to pay an amount of ` 14,000/- per month in both the proceedings, whereas his take home salary for the month of May, 2015 is only ` 30,185/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter has ripened for arguments since the evidence has been led, however, the final orders have not been passed.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance and submits that the interim maintenance has rightly been allowed. It is also argued that as on date arrears of maintenance have not been cleared in terms of the order dated 30.03.2016.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim maintenance as per his instructions has been cleared, if for some reason it is not so, the same will be cleared before the final arguments. 6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the main petitions have ripened for arguments, this Court does not

deem it appropriate to go into the question regarding the interim maintenance awarded and both the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the final hearing and pass appropriate orders on the basis of the evidence led.

7.

In the meanwhile, the interim stay that was allowed by this Court by order dated 30.05.2016, shall continue till the final orders are passed.

8.

Both the petitions stand disposed of.

9.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.

29.11.2018 (JAISHREE THAKUR) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes.

Whether reportable No.