Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1527 (PNJ)

Sushila v. Raj Kishan Mor

2000-12-12

V.M.JAIN

body2000
ORDER V.M. Jain, J. - This order shall dispose of above mentioned two revision petitions under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 31.5.1999 passed by the trial Court directing the husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and minor daughter, during the pendency of the suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. CR No. 3017 of 2000 has been filed by the husband, alleging therein that the order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month be set aside, while CR No. 4556 of 1999 has been filed by the wife and minor child, alleging therein that the amount of interim maintenance be suitably increased. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of these petitions are that the wife and minor daughter had filed a suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the husband, on the ground that she was legally wedded wife while the daughter was student of 10th class and that the husband had deserted them and had refused to maintain them and that they had no source of income of their own. It was alleged that the husband was having income of 20,000/- per month besides agricultural property and a house and as such he can give Rs. 6000/- per month to applicant No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- to applicant No. 2 (minor daughter) as interim maintenance. Accordingly, they claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit for maintenance. The said suit for maintenance and application for grant of interim maintenance were contested by the husband by filing written statement and reply, alleging therein that applicant No. 1 (wife) alongwith minor child had left the house with one Raj Singh Malik, contractor and she was living an unchaste life and she was being maintained by said Raj Singh Malik. It was alleged that suit for maintenance was not maintainable and as such application for interim maintenance was also not maintainable. It was alleged that his total income from all sources was Rs. 1683/- per month and out of the said amount, he was spending Rs. 1000/- per month on medicines. 3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, directed the husband to pay Rs. It was alleged that his total income from all sources was Rs. 1683/- per month and out of the said amount, he was spending Rs. 1000/- per month on medicines. 3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, directed the husband to pay Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance to wife and child from the date of filing of the application, vide order dated 31.5.1999. Aggrieved against this order of the trial Court both the sides have filed the above mentioned revision petitions, as referred to above. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 5. So far as the allegation of the husband that wife is living unchaste life or is living with one Raj Singh Malik, Contractor, who is supporting her, in my opinion, cannot be accepted at this stage. This matter would be gone into by the court only after the parties have been given opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The marriage in this case had taken place in the year 1974 and after living together for 16 years, the parties separated in the year 1990. 6. Coming on the question regarding amount of maintenance, the learned trial Court took into consideration that the husband owned 20 kanals 14 marlas of land, as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91 and there was nothing on the record to show that he had sold the said land or the sale proceedings were utilised towards the litigation expenses, as alleged, especially when the husband had failed to give the particulars about the person to whom the land in question was sold and the amount for which the land was sold and when. On the other hand, as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the husband was owner-in-possession of the said land. The sale of the land, vide sale deed dated 12.2.1999 by Raj Krishan son of Gorkha in favour of his own nephew Dinesh Kumar son of Raghbir Singh son of Gorkha for Rs. 1,81,000/- (during the pendency of the said suit for maintenance) would be of no help to the husband to save the payment of interim maintenance to wife and minor daughter. This is especially so when as per mutation the land was sold for Rs. 1,81,000/- (during the pendency of the said suit for maintenance) would be of no help to the husband to save the payment of interim maintenance to wife and minor daughter. This is especially so when as per mutation the land was sold for Rs. 1,81,000/- and if this amount is invested, it would be sufficient for the husband to earn sufficient income so as to pay Rs. 1500/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and minor child. In my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in allowing interim maintenance @ Rs. 1500/- per month for the two applicants, considering the income of the husband from all sources. Neither the amount of Rs. 1500/- could be said to be on higher side nor on the lower side. The mere fact that lesser amount of maintenance was allowed, in the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code , in my opinion, would be neither here nor there. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in these revision petitions, both the parties are dismissed. No costs. Revisions dismissed.