Rajesh Kumar v. Pooja Yadav
CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) & CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) -1-
109+256
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2024 RAJESH KUMAR ......PETITIONER Vs.
POOJA YADAV .........RESPONDENT CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) POOJA YADAV ....PETITIONER VS.
RAJESH KUMAR .......RESPONDENT
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present:
Mr. Marinal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner [in CRR(F)-128-2024] and for the respondent [in CRR(F)-38-2024] Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan & Mr. Aman Yadav, Advocates, for the petitioner [in CRR(F)-38-2024] and for the respondent [in CRR(F)-128-2024].
***** HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN J. (ORAL) CRM-17749-2024 IN CRR(F)-128-2024 1.
In compliance of the order dated 29.01.2024,
CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) & CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) -2-
! !
"
CRM-1200-2024 IN CRR(F)-38-2024 1.
#
$ % &
'
(( )* )
#
*
+
$
CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) & CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) 1.
Since a common question of law and facts are involved, these cases are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment. However, for the convenience of the Court, the facts are being taken up from CRR(F)-128-2024.
2.
Both, the petitioner-husband (Rajesh Kumar) and the respondent-wife (Pooja Yadav) have challenged the judgment of the learned Family Court by way of filing these petitions. As per the impugned judgment dated 15.09.2023, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Mahendergarh, has awarded the maintenance @30% of the net salary of the petitioner-husband (Rajesh Kumar) to the respondent-wife (Pooja Yadav), w.e.f. the date of the filing of the petition.
CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) & CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) -3-
3.
Heard.
4.
In Paragraph No. 5 of the impugned judgment, the Family Court had discussed about the salary of the husband (Rajesh Kumar) for the month of March as 55,000/- per month. However, the 'year' has not been mentioned in the said paragraph. Further, again a reference is there of the salary of the husband (Rajesh Kumar) for the month of July 2022, where it has been mentioned that gross salary of the husband is 78,485/- and his net pay is to the tune of 73,743/- per month and reference is to Mark-27 which is not an exhibited document.
5.
The petitioner-husband has relied upon the salary certificate Annexure P-1 for the month of January 2023 reflecting the gross salary as 56,753/-, net payable of 51740/-. However, this fact is not clear as to whether the salary certificate was part of the paper-book before the Family Court as an exhibited document.
6.
The Family Court has awarded the maintenance @ 30% of the net salary of the petitioner-husband (Rajesh Kumar). I am of the considered opinion that by not quantifying the amount of maintenance, the parties would remain uncertain about their rights & liabilities under the impugned order. The order is uncertain. The Executing Court will have to again seek documents for each month to calculate the awarded amount by calculating its 30% and even it would be difficult for both the parties to calculate the arrears, as well as for the Executing Court to execute the order. 7.
In order to avoid the ambiguity in the order, the matter is remanded back to the Family Court, Camp Court, Mahendergarh, for a limited point to reassess the evidence led by both the parties and pass fresh
CRR(F)-128-2024 (O&M) & CRR(F)-38-2024 (O&M) -4-
orders. The Family Court is directed to decide the matter within a period of 03 months on receiving the copy of this order. The evidence led by parties earlier shall be considered to pass fresh order. 8.
Keeping in view the above, both these petitions are disposed of. 9.
Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
April 25, 2024 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN) nitin JUDGE Whether Speaking Yes Whether reportable No