High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO(FC)/290/2016dismissed

Naveen v. Rinku & ANR

2016-10-05Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRR(F)-290-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-290-2016 Date of Decision:- 05.10.2016 Naveen ....Petitioner

Versus

Rinku and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Present revision petition is against the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the learned District Judge (Family Court) Bhiwani whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of `5,000/- per month to Rinkurespondent No.1 (wife) and `1,000/- per month to Kanchan-respondent No.2 (daughter) as maintenance.

The case set up by the respondent (wife) is that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner (husband) and she has no source of income. She has also no movable and immovable property in her name. Her husband is working at Delhi Airport, besides the same he has also owned 21⁄2 acre of agricultural land and his earning is `1,00,000/- per Naresh Kumar 2016.10.19 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh month. Thus, she is legally entitled to interim maintenance.

CRR(F)-290-2016 -2Learned counsel for the petitioner has aruged that the petitioner has no source of income and he is not in a position to pay any maintenance amount as he is only working as a labor. So, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the recod, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge (Family Court) Bhiwani, has rightly granted the maintenance of `5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 (wife) and `1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 (daughter), vide order dated 15.07.2016 and the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective and does not require any interference. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction.

Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 05, 2016 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable /No Naresh Kumar 2016.10.