Pushpinder Kaur vs Balbir Singh & Ors on 23 August, 2017

CRR-3822-2015 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Revision No.3822 of 2015(OM)
Date of Decision: August 23, 2017

Pushpinder Kaur

…Petitioner

Versus

Balbir Singh and another

…Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:- Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

********

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

CRM-33335-20158

There is a delay of 68 days in filing the present revision

petition.

2. It is contended that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief

that the impugned order dated 14.05.2015 could be challenged under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. for which there is no prescribed period of limitation,

but after consulting the lawyer, she came to know that the said order could

be challenged by filing a revision petition, resultantly, the delay in question

has occurred.

1 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:25 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -2-

3. The application is duly supported by affidavit.

4. Considering the aforesaid explanation, which is duly supported

by affidavit, the application in hand is hereby allowed and the delay of 68

days in filing the accompanying revision petition is condoned.

CRR-3822-2015

1. The instant petition has been filed seeking to challenge the

order dated 14.05.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, modifying the

order dated 28.01.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, only

to the extent that the maintenance amount of Rs.9000/- per month, as

assessed, would be paid from the date of the petition, without enhancing the

amount as prayed for.

2. The brief facts as alleged are that the petitioner-wife

approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, by filing an application

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was disposed of by order dated

01.03.2008 with a direction to respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1200/-

per month to the petitioner-wife and Rs.600/- per month each to her two

sons. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife filed a suit under Order 33 Rule 1

CPC, as indigent person, for fixing maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs

@ Rs.6000/- each per month i.e. total amounting to Rs.18,000/- per month

under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and while deciding

the application for interim maintenance by order dated 08.08.2011, which

was filed along with the said suit, the trial court awarded Rs.2000/- per

month for petitioner-wife and Rs.1500/- per month each for the minor sons

of the petitioners. This order was challenged by preferring an appeal before

2 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -3-

the learned Additional District Judge, however, being in doubt regarding

maintainability of the appeal, the same was withdrawn and the order dated

08.08.2011 was challenged before this court by way of Civil Revision

No.2673 of 2012. This court by order dated October 09, 2013, while

disposing of the said civil revision, enhanced the interim maintenance to

Rs.9000/- per month to be paid to petitioner-wife and her two minor sons

proportionately, from the date of the application. Thereafter, the petitioner-

wife filed the instant complaint under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 28

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which,

the impugned order came to be passed declaring the petitioner entitled to

maintenance @ Rs.9000/- per month, but from the date of the petition.

3. Mr. Jaswant Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-wife contends that as per the salary slip of respondent

No.1-husband, the gross salary payable to him in the month of December,

2016 is Rs.62,509/- per month, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd of

the said amount towards maintenance in the present proceedings.

4. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.1-husband, vehemently counters the arguments

addressed by counsel for the petitioner, with the prayer to dismiss the

instant criminal revision.

5. I have heard the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties,

apart from perusing the record.

6. The petition filed by the petitioner-wife under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 20015, was decided by learned

3 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -4-

Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, by judgment dated 28.01.2015 with the

following relief:-

“……. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
grant the relief provided under Section 20 of the Act i.e.
financial help to the petitioner by the respondent No.1,
who has neglected to maintain her and has committed the
act of violence upon the petitioner. The petitioner has
further put on record document Ex.PX certified copy of
the salary statement of respondent No.1 issued by the
Principal of the School, where the respondent is working
which shows that respondent No.1 is earning more than
Rs.36,000/- per month. However, the respondent has no
other responsibility except for the maintenance of the
petitioner and her children. Hence, this Court hereby
orders the respondent No.1 to pay an amount of
Rs.9,000/- per month for the maintenance of the
petitioner. Since the petitioner is also receiving the
amount under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as ordered by the
Hon’ble High Court, therefore, the amount already paid
under that petition is directed to be set off against the
arrears of maintenance in the present petition…….”

7. This order was not challenged by respondent No.1-husband,

however, the petitioner-wife challenged the said order in appeal before

learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, which was disposed of by judgment dated

14.05.2015, with the observations that:-

“5. Indisputably, Smt. Pushpinder Kaur appellant-wife
along with her two minor children has been residing
separately from respondent No.1 for the past many
years. In a revision petition moved before Hon’ble High
Court against maintenance allowance order of trial

4 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -5-

Magistrate recorded in a petition under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure of appellant-wife and
her two minor children, the already awarded amount in
the sum of Rs.2000/- per month to the appellant-wife
and Rs.1500/- per month each to her two sons was
enhanced to Rs.9000/- per month in their favour. There
is no dispute of the fact on behalf of appellant that in
the past she had initiated multiple civil as well as
criminal proceedings against respondent No.1 which
caused him mental agony as well as financial loss. No
doubt respondent No.1 had drawn gross salary of
Rs.45046/- during the month of July, 2014, which
evidence from Ex.PX, yet award of Rs.9000/- per month
solely in favour of appellant by no means can be rated
insufficient for livelihood of appellant. Consequently,
no ground is made out to make any enhancement in the
already awarded maintenance amount of Rs.9000/- per
month as granted by the court below.

6. At the same time, pertinent to mention that the
impugned order fails to spell out any particular date of
commencement, thereby, holding respondent No.1
liable to pay the awarded maintenance amount to
appellant-wife. Accordingly, the impugned order is
modified to the extent that Balbir Singh respondent
No.1 shall make payment of maintenance amount of
Rs.9000/- per month as awarded by the learned trial
Magistrate from the date of petition i.e.
26.05.2010………”

5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -6-

8. In this criminal revision, this court has to decide the question

that as to what suitable amount, the petitioner-wife is entitled to, keeping in

view the gross salary of respondent No.1-husband, considering the other

liabilities of both the petitioner-wife and respondent No.1-husband.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner-wife and her two minor sons are

already getting a sum of Rs.9000/- per month proportionately, as per the

orders passed by this court in CR No.2673 of 2012 in a proceeding initiated

under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. As per the salary

slip produced on record, respondent No.1-husband was having gross salary

of Rs. 62,509/- in the month of December, 2016. There is nothing on record

to show that respondent No.1 has any other responsibility, except the

petitioner and two minor sons. In the case in hand, petitioner-wife along

with her two minor sons is residing separately from respondent No.1-

husband for the last many years, as such, more funds are required for the

education and upbringing of the minor children. Amongst the others, one of

the main reason for enacting the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, is to provide financial help to the abandoned woman,

who has no means or source to maintain herself.

10. Considering the facts that petitioner and her two sons are

already getting Rs.9000/- per month proportionately, in the proceedings

initiated under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and that

respondent No.1 was getting Rs.62,509/ per month as gross salary in the

month of December, 2016, this court deems it appropriate to enhance the

amount of maintenance to Rs.11,000/- per month from the date of filing of

6 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::
CRR-3822-2015 -7-

this criminal revision. However, the petitioner would be entitled to

Rs.9000/- per month as maintenance, from the date of filing of the petition

before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, uptill the date of filing this

criminal revision. It is made clear that this amount would be in addition to

the maintenance, which the petitioner and her two sons are already getting

under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Respondent No.1 is

directed to clear that arrears of maintenance within a period of three months,

from the date of this order. However, the amount already paid by respondent

No.1 in these proceedings, shall be adjusted towards the arrears.

11. With the aforesaid modifications in the impugned orders, the

petition stands disposed of.

(JAISHREE THAKUR)
August 23, 2017 JUDGE
vijay saini

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No

7 of 7
01-09-2017 15:57:31 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *