Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 99 (PNJ)

Karan Singh v. Hans Kaur

2008-01-16

RAJESH BINDAL

body2008
Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated July 13, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judges, Rewari whereby the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, in proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance was upheld. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent is undisputedly the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. On account of her desertion, she had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on August 16, 1976. Vide order dated September 20, 1997, she was granted a maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month from the petitioner, who admittedly was working as a Lecturer in a government college but now has retired. It is further alleged that the maintenance so fixed by the court was not paid by the petitioner but recovered by the respondent by filing various petitions for recovery and after September 30, 1998, no amount of maintenance was paid. 3. The petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for revision of the maintenance was filed by the respondent on November 20, 2001 with the plea that the petitioner was then earning salary of Rs. 2,10,000/- per annum. Further allegations were that the petitioner was in fact living in adultery. Without getting divorce from the respondent, he was living with one Anand Bala and from that unholy wedlock, three children were also born. The claim was made for a maintenance of Rs. 2500/- per month. 4. After considering the plea raised by both the parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated January 17, 2006, directed the enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. November 20, 2001. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was upheld in revision by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the increase in the amount of maintenance payable to the respondent is exorbitant as from Rs. 200/- it has been enhanced to Rs. 2500/- per month. The petitioner who was earlier serving as Lecturer has already retired and now his pension is merely Rs. 7,566/-. He prays for reduction of the maintenance allowance. 6. 200/- it has been enhanced to Rs. 2500/- per month. The petitioner who was earlier serving as Lecturer has already retired and now his pension is merely Rs. 7,566/-. He prays for reduction of the maintenance allowance. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned courts below have gone wrong in enhancing the maintenance from the date of application as against from the date of order without any reason. The application was filed by the respondent on November 20, 2001 whereas the order was passed on January 17, 2006. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is a case where the respondent claimed only Rs. 2,500/- as maintenance from the petitioner and the court granted only upto that extent otherwise admittedly the petitioner was earlier working as a Lecturer and even in 2002, his salary was Rs. 19,659/ - per month, whereas he was paying maintenance of merely Rs. 200/- per month. He further submits that in addition to the pension being drawn by the petitioner, even the other lady with whom the petitioner is living is also employed and earning Rs. 8000-9000/- per month. The daughter of the petitioner is already working in USA and getting a salary of $ 1200-1300 per month. 8. Still further the submission is that be that as it may, the present quashing petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is nothing else but an effort to bypass the legal bar of non-maintainability of second revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In support of her contention she relied upon judgment of Honble the Supreme Court in Dharampal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors., 1993(1) RCR(Crl.) 696 (SC). 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the file, I find merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the present petition for quashing of the order passed in revision filed by him before the learned Sessions Judge is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Dharampals case supra. The facts of the case as noticed above, do not at all suggest that there is any miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a retired government lecturer getting a handsome pension. The facts of the case as noticed above, do not at all suggest that there is any miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is a retired government lecturer getting a handsome pension. The lady with whom he is living without legally separating from the respondent is also employed and getting a salary of Rs. 8000-9000/- per month. There are no issues from the wedlock between the parties to the present proceedings. Still the daughter born out of the lady with whom the petitioner is living is also employed in United States of America. On the other hand the respondent, who is an illiterate old lady, has been awarded merely a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month which cannot be said to be excessive in any manner whatsoever requiring interference by this court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Even the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that enhancement of maintenance should have been from the date of the order passed has no legs to stand. Admittedly, the petitioner was merely paying Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance as was fixed way back in the year 1977 though he was employed as a lecturer in the government college drawing a handsome salary. The respondent is an illiterate lady. The petitioner retired from service only in August 2005 and for the period prior to that ever since the application for revision of maintenance was filed in November 2001 he was getting salary whereas thereafter he has been getting pension. Keeping these facts in view, in my opinion, even the direction given by the courts below for revision of the maintenance from the date of application is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Accordingly I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. 12. The petitioner is directed to clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.