Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 233 (PNJ)

Rita Anand v. Bhupinder Kumar

2004-02-25

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide the impugned order dated May 20, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, Mrs. Rita Anand/petitioner No. 1, wife of Bhupinder Kumar has been awarded Rs. 300/- per month whereas petitioners No. 2 to 4, her minor children namely Mun Mun, Master Gunnu and Baby Guddu (all minors) have been awarded Rs. 200/- p.m. as maintenance. Being dissatisfied with the amount of maintenance, they have preferred the present revision petition for enhancement of maintenance. 2. The order dated 20.7.2003 indicates that Mrs. Maninder Kaur Advocate had appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Advocate had appeared for the respondent. On the request of learned counsel for the respondent, the present case was adjourned for 6.8.2003. Thereafter the case was taken up on 28.1.2004. On that day no one had appeared for either side and it was adjourned for 4.1.2004. So was the position on the said date. As such it was again adjourned for today. 3. I am disposing of the petition on merits without assistance being rendered from either side. 4. It has been stated in the grounds of petition that all the petitioners are dependent upon the parents of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 1 is a retired person. It is then stated that petitioners No. 2 to 4 are studying in a school and they need a considerable amount for their education, food and clothing etc. For this reason, it is prayed that the amount as awarded by the trial Court be enhanced. It was also been averred that the respondent is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month by running a Chemist shop alongwith his father and also owns a house, the ground floor or which has been rented out by him. In support of her assertions, petitioner No. 1 has tendered her affidavit. 3. The learned trial Court has observed that the plea of the respondent that he earns Rs. 900/- per month only appears to be a concocted version. Taking into consideration all the factors, the trial Court has directed Bhupinder Kumar respondent to pay the amount of maintenance to the petitioners, as already indicated above. 4. At the time of filing of the present revision, petitioner Mun Mun was of 4 years, Master Gunnu of 3 years and Baby Guddu was of 9 months only. Taking into consideration all the factors, the trial Court has directed Bhupinder Kumar respondent to pay the amount of maintenance to the petitioners, as already indicated above. 4. At the time of filing of the present revision, petitioner Mun Mun was of 4 years, Master Gunnu of 3 years and Baby Guddu was of 9 months only. By now more than 6 years have elapsed. The children must have grown up and should be studying in different classes. They need considerable amount for their education, clothing and food etc. The price index has also increased considerably during these years. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, in my view the amount of maintenance already awarded by the trial Court deserves to be enhanced. Consequently, Bhupinder Kumar respondent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- p.m. to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 400/- p.m. to (sic) accordingly. However, it is made clear that the enhanced amount shall be payable from today. The present revision petition stands allowed in terms of the modification in the amount of maintenance as indicated above. Petition allowed.