Crl.
Misc.
not M-8294 of 2013 (O&M) -:
1. :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Misc.
not M-8294 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: March 13, 2013.
Sanjay Kumar and others ..Petitioner(s) v.
Savita ..Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Shri Pankaj Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
(Oral).In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.1.2013 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal whereby the respondent has been awarded monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- from the date of institution of the application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the custody of the minot child has been given to her, as also the order dated 20.2.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby the order dated 10.1.2013 has been upheld, however, with a modification to the extent that the petitioners have been granted visitation rights to the minot child.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.The arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the grant of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent, being excessive, is devoid of merit, in view of the spiraling Crl.
Misc.
not M-8294 of 2013 (O&M) -:
2. :- prices of essential commodities these days.
It is the statutory, moral as well as legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife and minot children.
Therefore, from no stretc.of imagination, it can be appreciated that the maintenance granted to the respondent-wife is excessive from any angle.
Hence, the argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners in this regard is discarded.
Another argument raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the custody of the child should be reverted back to the petitioners as they have emotional bondage with him as he had been brought up by them since the days when he was two months' old, and in fact, the custody of the child ought not to have been given to the respondent.
The respondent is sought to be branded a woman of bad character, in whose company the child will not foster morality and character.
However, this Court is not inclined to accept this contention also.
Needless to say, no one can be a more caring and well wisher of the child than his mother.
Therefore, this contention is outrightly rejected.
No merit.
Dismissed in limine.
[ Paramjeet Singh ].March 13, 2013.
Judge kadyan