Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1586 (PNJ)

Punita v. Ravi alias Shamsher Singh

2013-12-02

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT SABINA, J. Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Trial Court. 2. Punita and her daughter Tripati filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) against Ravi alias Shamsher Singh claiming maintenance. 3. Case of Punita was that she got married to Ravi alias Shamsher Singh on 04.11.2003 and out of the said wedlock Tripati was born. Ravi alias Shamsher Singh harassed Punita on account of insufficiency of dowry and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home along with her daughter in the month of August, 2006. Learned Trial Court while allowing the petition granted maintenance to Punita to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month and Rs.1,500/- per month to the minor child Tripati. Hence, both the parties have filed above mentioned two petitions challenging the order 09.10.2012 passed by the Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for Ravi alias Shamsher Singh has submitted that Trial Court had erred in granting maintenance to his wife and daughter. In fact, Punita had sufficient means to maintain herself and her minor daughter. 5. Learned counsel for Punita and Tripati on the other hand, has submitted that the amount of maintenance allowed by the Trial Court was on the lower side. 6. In the present case, admittedly, Punita got married to Ravi alias Shamsher Singh on 04.11.2003. Out of the said wedlock, Tripati was born. 7. Case of Punita is that Ravi alias Shamsher Singh was earning at least Rs.70,000/- per month. Ravi alias Shamsher Singh owned and possessed five acres of land and was also running a dairy farm as well as a shop of electronic goods in Khanouri. 8. Case of Ravi alias Shamsher Singh, on the other hand, was that he had no source of income and was unable to pay any maintenance to Punita and the minor child. 9. Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Act with a view to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives and children. Section 125, Cr.P.C. has a social object to achieve. The provision is remedial rather than being punitive. The purpose is to save the deserted wives and children from vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to the deserted wives and children. 10. Section 125, Cr.P.C. has a social object to achieve. The provision is remedial rather than being punitive. The purpose is to save the deserted wives and children from vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to the deserted wives and children. 10. In the present case, there is no documentary evidence on record qua the income of Ravi alias Shamsher Singh. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly directed Ravi alias Shamsher Singh to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to Punita and Rs.1,500/- per month to the minor child. The said amount of maintenance allowed by the Trial Court to Punita and the minor child cannot be said to be on higher side in these days of higher prices. Further, the said amount is also not liable to be enhanced in the absence of any documentary evidence on record qua income of the husband Ravi alias Shamsher Singh. Hence, no ground for interference is made out. 11. Both the petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.