Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 668 (HP)

Pawan Kumar S/o. Shri Basant v. Dinesh Kumar S/o. Shri Pawan Kumar

2022-11-02

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In terms of the last order, affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the same demonstrates that it is mentioned therein that after the retirement of the petitioner form BBMB, Nangal Township, District Rupnagar (Punjab), he received an amount of Rs.37,03,467/- in all from BBMB and out of this he has spent an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on the renovation of old residential house, purchase of car and part thereof has been given to his sons, namely Amit Kumar and Sumit Kumar to earn their livelihood. It is further stated in the affidavit that petitioner is drawing a pension of Rs.32,156/- per month. He is paying installment of Rs.10,000/- per month of the car loan. 2. The Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P., in a petition preferred by the respondent herein under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of maintenance, in terms whereof, learned Family Court has granted maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of the petition to the applicant therein. The applicant happens to be the son of the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that amount of maintenance as has been ordered by the learned Court below is on the higher side and probably, learned Court was influenced of the fact that the petitioner was in job when the matter was heard by it and it erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner stood retired as on the date when the order was announced, the Award was on the higher side. On this count, prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned order. 4. The petition is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent who has argued that in view of the fact that the petitioner was having substantive means at his disposal, learned Court below rightly held the respondent herein to be entitle to maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. He has further submitted that the son is about thirteen-fourteen years old and it is otherwise also the duty of the father to look after his child and therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below calls for no interference. 5. He has further submitted that the son is about thirteen-fourteen years old and it is otherwise also the duty of the father to look after his child and therefore, the order passed by the learned Court below calls for no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the order passed by the learned Court below. 6. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the petition under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was preferred by the minor child through mother against the present petitioner on 06.06.2017. The petition was decided on 29.07.2021 by the learned Court below and petitioner is stated to have superannuated from service on 30.06.2021. 7. This Court is of the considered view that as it is not a case where the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after his retirement or that the petitioner was taken by surprise by the order which was passed by the learned Court below. Therefore, the grounds which have been agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order are not sustainable. Admittedly, the petitioner knew that he was facing proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and these proceedings were pending since the year 2017. Simply because the final decision was rendered thereupon by learned Court below about twenty nine days post superannuation of the petitioner, this does not renders the order to be per se bad in law as has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, the affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions which were passed by this Court on 19.04.2022, it is apparent and evident that the petitioner was in hurry to do away with the money which he received from his employer post superannuation and the reason seems to be obvious that he wanted to evade the honouring of the order passed by the learned Trial Court which stands assailed by way of this Revision Petition. This observation is being made by the Court in view of the fact that as the petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 30.06.2021 and the order passed by learned Family Court is dated 29.07.2021, if it is to be assumed that the petitioner had by the time the order was announced, spent almost all that he got post superannuation from BBMB, then obviously he did away with this money within twenty nine days as from the day when he retired. However, after his superannuation as by no stretch of imagination the petitioner would have had received his entire retiral benefits within fifteen or twenty days, thereafter, it is apparent and evident that this entire money was spent by the petitioner after he was aware of the order that was passed by learned Family Court. Otherwise also, as is evident from the affidavit filed by the petitioner, as his family members including his other sons are well settled and not dependent upon the petitioner, therefore, out of the pension which is now being received by him, he can discharge the payment of maintenance allowance which has been ordered by learned Family Court. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has superannuated, some indulgence be shown by the Court. 9. This Revision Petition is disposed of by though otherwise maintaining the findings which have been returned by learned Family Court, but by reducing the Award amount from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month, but with effect from today, meaning thereby that the petitioner will pay the maintenance allowance to the respondent at the rate as has been granted by learned Family Court till the month of October, 2022 and as from the month of November, 2022 onwards, Rs.12,000/- per month. Pending miscellaneous, applications, if any, also stand disposed of.