IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.223 OF 201.(O&M) DATE OF DECISION :
18. h MARCH, 2013 Atul ….
Petitioner Versus Sheetal ….
Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** L.N.MITTAL, J.
(ORAL) CRM No.9269 of 2013 This is application by petitioner for restoring the revision petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 04.02.2013.
Heard.
For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit of the counsel, the application is allowed and the revision petition is restored to its original number.
CRM No.9270 of 2013 The application is allowed and Annexure P-2 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case Husband Atul has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 23.11.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Sonepat whereby petitioner has been directed to pay `3,000/- per month as interim maintenance CRR No.223 OF 201.(O&M) -2- to respondent-wife Sheetal on her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.).I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Facts of the case are not in dispute.
Respondent is wife of the petitioner.
Respondent has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.claiming maintenance from the petitioner-husband.
During pendency of the said petition, the respondent claimed interim maintenance, which has been allowed as aforesaid by the Family Court.
Gross salary of the petitioner, as per salary slip Annexure P-2, is `37,200/- per month out of which there is deduction of `3,000/- per month towards provident fund and `2,500/- towards income tax.
However, deduction towards provident fund cannot be taken into consideration because the said deduction is accumulating for the benefit of the petitioner himself.
The deduction of income tax has to be taken into consideration.
Thus salary of the petitioner is `34,700/- per month.
The petitioner has been directed to pay `10,000/- per month as maintenance in case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Thus the total amount of maintenance to be paid by the petitioner is `10,000/- per month under the said Act and `3,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C.Keeping in view the salary of the petitioner, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive so as to call for interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction.
Impugned order of the Family Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is dismissed in limine.
CRR No.223 OF 201.(O&M) -3- 18th March, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE