Surender v. Smt. Krishna And Another

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR (F) No.110 of 2017 Reserved on : 31.08.2023 Date of Decision : 12.09.2023 Surender ....Petitioner

VERSUS

Krishna and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present :

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents. ALKA SARIN, J.

1.

This is a revision petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2017 whereby the application filed by the respondents under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance to them was allowed. 2.

The Family Court vide the impugned order dated 02.01.2017 allowed the application under Section 127 CrPC by enhancing the amount of maintenance and directing the petitioner herein to pay Rs.2,000/- pm to the respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1,000/- pm to respondent No.2-son from the date of the application. The petitioner was further directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent No.1-wife on account of education of respondent No.2-son.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that he does not wish to press the present petition qua respondent No.1-wife and that he has been paying the maintenance regularly to her. Qua respondent No.2-son, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner

-2himself is 80% disabled due to mental illness, which is also apparent from his disability certificate dated 24.06.1999 (Ex.R1). It is further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2-son was a student of B.Tech and that his course was from 2011 to 2015. In 2016 there was only a supplementary paper which was left and he was to reappear for the said paper in 2016. It is submitted that the B.Tech course itself had finished and therefore the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded on account of education of respondent No.2-son is not sustainable. It has also been contended that respondent No.2-son is 30 years of age. The learned counsel has also challenged the grant of maintenance to the son. 4.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents has contended that respondent No.2-son had been granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of his education and that though he is 30 years of age he has still not got a job. Learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the amount awarded is on account of education of respondent No.2-son starting from his schooling till B.Tech and not a penny has been paid by the petitioner towards his education. He, however, states that qua the monthly maintenance granted to the son he would not be opposing the challenge.

-3-

-4NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO