High Court of Punjab and HaryanaFAO(FC)/50/2016dismissed

Pappu Ram v. Nisha Rani

2017-03-14Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

CRR(F)-50-2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-50-2016 Date of Decision:- 14.03.2017 Pappu Ram ....Petitioner

Versus

Nisha Rani ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Chander Shekhar Singhal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sheenu, Advocate for the respondent.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed the present revision petition against order dated 21.11.2015, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Family Court), Ambala, whereby the petitioner (husband) has been directed to pay interim maintenance of `1500/- per month to the respondent (wife) from the date of the filing of the application along with litigation expenses of `2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is 70% handicapped as per disability certificate Mark-RA and he is unable to do any work. So, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going Naresh Kumar 2017.03.22 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh through the record, this Court is of the considered view that learned

CRR(F)-50-2016 -2Additional District & Sessions Judge (Family Court), Ambala, has assessed the income of the petitioner as `7000/- to `8000/- per month as that of casual labour and accordingly, granted the maintenance of `1500/- per month to the respondent (wife), vide order dated 21.11.2015 and the same has been passed after appreciating the evidence in the correct prospective. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 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. March 14, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.03.22 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh