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 trial4 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 :::