Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10425 = 2017(3) 145
Decided on : 26.09.2017
Alongwith
CRR(F)-378-2017, Virender v. Punit (minor) son of Virender through his mother
Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance to wife/minor son -- Respondent /wife claims that the petitioner is serving in private company and has been earning Rs.25,000/- per month -- Amount of Rs.7,000/- per month by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side for maintenance of the wife and minor son especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living.
(Para 5)
JUDGMENT
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) –
1. This judgment shall dispose of aforementioned two revision petitions filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2017 passed by District Judge, (Family Court) Sonipat whereby the petitioner/husband had been directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/-per month as interim maintenance to the respondent(s) (Rs.4000/- for respondent-wife and Rs.3,000/- for minor child of the petitioner) in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is asserted that the petitioner is a private employee and does not have any movable and immovable property and thus is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to respondent(s). Otherwise also, parents of the petitioner are also dependent on him. It is claimed that respondent/wife is well qualified woman and competent to earn by way of doing stitching work. The impugned order has been passed without considering this factual aspect of the matter.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the case file.
4. The parties solemnized marriage on 11.03.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock a male child was born on 05.12.2015. The respondent/wife was forced to leave the house of the petitioner when she was pregnant and she gave birth to her son at her parental home. Since then, respondent/wife along with her son has been residing at her parental home. The respondent /wife claims that the petitioner is serving in private company and has been earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
5. In the circumstances, this Court feels that the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side for maintenance of the wife and minor son especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living.
6. In that view of the matter, the Court below rightly fixed the interim maintenance in favour of respondents. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Both the revisions petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
********