Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rohit Kumar v. Reshma Rani & Ors - CRM-59812-m-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 3264 (18 May 2006)

Crl.Misc. No.59812-M of 2005 1


Criminal Misc. No. 59812-M of 2005

Date of decision: May 17,2006

Rohit Kumar V. Reshma Rani and others

Present: Shri V.B.Aggrwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the private respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

The petitioner before this court is husband who has challenged order dated August 29,2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.

The facts, which emerge from the record, show that a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the respondents who are wife and two minor children of the petitioner. The learned trial court had fixed maintenance amount of Rs.500/- per month for the wife and Rs.300/- each per month for the two children. The respondents thereafter filed an application under section 127 Code before the trial Magistrate for enhancement of the maintenance amount. The aforesaid application was allowed and the learned trial Magistrate enhanced maintenance amount for the wife from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/- per month whereas for the children, the amount was fixed at Rs.500/-each per month.

The petitioner-husband filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. During the course of the proceedings, in the revision petition an application was moved by the petitioner to withdraw the said revision petition. It also appears that an application for seeking the transfer of the proceedings from the learned Sessions Judge was also moved by the husband before this court. However, the said application was dismissed.

It appears that the learned Sessions Judge declined the permission sought by the husband to withdraw the said revision petition.

Crl.Misc. No.59812-M of 2005 2

However, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and exercising the revisional powers, learned Session Judge noticed that the net monthly income of the husband was Rs.14965/- and in these circumstances it was opined that the maintenance amount fixed for the wife and the minor children was inadequate. Consequently, while exercising the aforesaid revisional powers, learned Sessions Judge enhanced the maintenance amount payable to the wife to Rs.2000/- per month and for the minor children to Rs.1000/- each per month. The aforesaid order dated August 29,2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is subject matter of challenge on behalf of the petitioner before this court.

Shri V.B.Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that since no revision petition had been filed by the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, there could be no further enhancement of the maintenance amount than the one allowed by the learned trial court. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that since there was a stand made by the petitioner before the Session Judge to withdraw the said revision petition, therefore, the said prayer should have been allowed and the revision petition should have been dismissed as withdrawn.

I have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same. In proceedings under section 125 of the Code, the court is concern with the subsistence of the party claiming the maintenance. In this view of the matter, when the learned Sessions Judge was dealing with the revision petition filed by the husband challenging the maintenance amount granted by the trial Magistrate, he was seized of the matter and as revisional court had ample powers to pass such orders as were required in the interest of justice and consequently awarded appropriate maintenance in favour of the respondents, although they had not filed any revision for further enhancement.

From the perusal of the record, I find that the husband is a College Lecturer drawing a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- and after deducting an amount of Rs.2042/- as GPF and Rs.2800/- as income tax his monthly salary is Rs.14,965/-. The various details given by the petitioner with regard to his personal expenses reflect that he is living lavish and Crl.Misc. No.59812-M of 2005 3

luxurious life. In this view of the matter, I find that the petitioner himself is living a comfortable life,whereas respondents,who are wife and his own children are living in penury. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Sessions Judge cannot be held to be excessive in any manner.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is apparently no justification for this court to exercise the inherent powers in favour of the petitioner who is fighting an unnecessary litigation against his wife and minor children.


A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges.

May 17, 2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.