High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO(FC)/221/2015dismissed

Pawan Kumar v. Golden @ Goldy

2016-10-17Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-221-2015 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.10.2016 Pawan Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

Golden @ Goldy

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 28.05.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad granting ad interim maintenance to the respondent wife to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is unsustainable on account of the fact that petitioner is not earning and that there is no evidence on record to assess his income. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the case file.

Admittedly, the petitioner has a degree in MBA and the learned District Judge, Family Court, while taking note of this fact came to the conclusion that an MBA could not earn less than Rs. 15000 -20,000/- per month and it was on basis of the degree of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as ad interim maintenance. There is no infirmity in the impugned order since a person who has an MBA degree starts working with Satyawan 2016.10.18 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

CRR(F)-221-2015 -2such a minimum salary. The respondent herein had taken a specific plea that the petitioner husband apart from earning as an MBA also has a share in the family business from where there is a monthly income. Taking these facts into account a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been awarded as ad interim maintenance which is a fair and just amount to be assessed at present stage for the respondent to be able to maintain and sustain herself. The case under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is still pending final adjudication before the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad.

No interference is called for in the impugned order and the same is upheld.

Revision petition stands dismissed.

17.10.2016 (JAISHREE THAKUR) sp JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No.

Satyawan 2016.10.18 13:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh