SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kiran Rathee vs Ashish Sangwan on 21 February, 2018

CRR(F) No. 201 of 2017 -1-

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Crl. Revision (F) No. 201 of 2017 (OM)
Date of Decision: 21.2.2018
Kiran Rathee ……Petitioner


Ashish Sangwan …..Respondent


Present: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. P.S.Poonia, Advocate
for the respondent.


This revision is directed against the order dated 19.4.2017

passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Ambala seeking modification of

the maintenance amount.

Detailing the facts first:-

The parties were married in April 2011. In the petition filed

under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner had claimed that after marriage

they had shifted to a rented accommodation in Gurgaon and the respondent

was not maintaining her though he had sufficient income. It was pleaded

that she had done her LL.M. but could not clear the interviews and was

taking coaching for judicial examination. It was pleaded that the husband

was working as a Software Engineer and had monthly salary of Rs. 2.00 lacs

and had bagged big data projects. The petition was filed at Ambala.

Family Court, Ambala sought reply of the respondent and noted

that the petitioner was a practicing lawyer. The respondent had pleaded that

he was taking training at National Academy, Mussoorie and his total salary

is Rs. 40,000/- per month and had to pay mess charges of Rs. 9927/- per

1 of 4
04-03-2018 23:38:00 :::
CRR(F) No. 201 of 2017 -2-

month and after deducting all the expenses he required for himself, he had a

spare amount of Rs. 10,000/- only and the petitioner was qualified and was

able to earn Rs. 2.00 lacs per month from her practice and she had shown

herself to be a practicing lawyer at the time of her medical examination in

September 2012. The respondent (as before the Court below) also referred

to a certificate issued by a Senior Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High

Court in November 2016 that the petitioner had taken training from him in


The Family Court took the income of the husband to be

Rs. 40,000/- per month and considering his deductions, allowed Rs. 6,000/-

per month as interim maintenance to the wife.

The petitioner claims that the Family Court has overlooked the

material facts and that they had taken information under the RTI on

25.11.2016 where the income was shown to be Rs. 50,000/- per month. It

was pleaded that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 25,000/- per month as

interim maintenance. It was pleaded that the petitioner only had a LL.B.

degree and she was not practicing and was preparing for her judicial exams

since 2013. Along with the petition, she had appended the forms filed for

the judicial service examination in different States from 2011 to 2015.

I have heard both the sides.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that they had taken

information under the RTI Act from Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy

of Administration, Mussoorie and in response, it was mentioned that a

trainee officer gets Rs. 50,000/- and that can be taken for assessing the

maintenance. It was urged that the petitioner has appended the certificate to

show that she had taken coaching from Rahul IAS Institute in

2 of 4
04-03-2018 23:38:02 :::
CRR(F) No. 201 of 2017 -3-

Delhi and she had paid a huge amount for the course fee and rentals for her

stay in Delhi and she was entitled to higher amount of maintenance. The

counsel had also referred to e-mail (Annexure P-4) and it was urged that the

respondent had made a fake e-mail account and had sent a letter to her

threatening her that the litigation would be expensive and that she should

agree for a settlement. The counsel states that the matter was reported to the

police and a case was registered.

The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the

petitioner has produced new documents which were not produced before the

Court below nor they can be considered and the petition under Section 125

Cr.P.C. was filed in 2016 and though the respondent is now an IAS officer

but at that point of time he was with Railways and his income was

Rs. 40,000/- per month and the order has been made to pay maintenance

from the date of application and the income being earned at that point of

time was rightly considered. The counsel points out that they had

mentioned that while the respondent was under-trainee, he had to spend

over Rs. 9900/- as mess fees and he had got no salary for June, July and

August 2016 as he was on leave without pay. The counsel urges that the

petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the Punjab and Haryana High Court

along with her brother and has not disclosed her income.

Responding to the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner

submits that no case has been filed by the petitioner in the High Court.

Petitioner has placed on record a number of documents which

were not before the Court below therefore, they cannot be considered.

However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had completed her LL.B.

course in 2010. She got married in 2011. The parties did not have any child

3 of 4
04-03-2018 23:38:02 :::
CRR(F) No. 201 of 2017 -4-

and the husband has filed a divorce petition in February 2016. The

application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed subsequently. The husband

was in Indian Railways in 2016 and his income at that point of time was

Rs. 40,000/- per month. Respondent claims that he was on leave for three

months and got no salary and during the training period he had to deposit

over Rs. 9900/- per month as mess fees.

The petitioner has not filed any affidavit that she was not

practicing in any Courts. She has appeared for judicial examination in few

northern States and it was prayed that since she had spent huge amounts on

the course fees and her stay in Delhi, she was entitled to those amounts as


The petitioner is pursuing her career and spending the amount

on herself for her own development. Those amounts spent by her cannot be

claimed. The income certificate of the husband is not available at this stage.

The parties are yet to lead evidence. After deducting the mess fees, the

amount which was in the hand of the husband was around Rs. 30,000/-.

There are some statutory deductions which are made and keeping the entire

circumstances into view, I am of the opinion that the amount which has

been allowed as interim maintenance is sufficient.

The petition is dismissed.

Nothing contained in this order would be taken as an

expression of final adjudication and would be done on the basis of the

evidence which would be led before the Court below.

February 21, 2018
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No

4 of 4
04-03-2018 23:38:02 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation