Crl.
Misc.
not M-25039 of 2013 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-25039 of 2013 Date of Decision: August 02, 2013 Mohd.
Akram ---Petitioner versus Shakleen and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner *** REKHA MITTAL, J.
The present petition lays challenge to orders dated 21.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla and dated 10.7.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for interim maintenance and payment of house rent, has been allowed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the parties was performed 16 years ago and there was no dispute between them.
It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly assessed earnings of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month and assessed maintenance at an enhanced rate of Rs.5000/- per month payable to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and another amount of Rs.1500/- per month has been allowed towards rental of residential accommodation to be provided by Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.08.07 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-25039 of 2013 -2- the petitioner.
It is further argued that the petitioner is running a repair shop as a black smith in a rented house and earns only Rs.5000-6000/- per month.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file.
Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, it is pertinent to mention that the trial court has assessed maintenance payable to the respondent-wife and minot daughter of the parties, as an interim measure, pending the decision of proceedings under Sections 17/18/19/20 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his plea that awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month to each of the respondents and Rs.1500/- per month towards rental for accommodation, amounts to abuse and misuse of process of law or has resulted in miscarriage of justice, as would call for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Indisputably, respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the minot daughter of the parties.
The daughter is 14 years old.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents have any source of income to meet their livelihood.
It is a question of fact to be adjudicated upon after parties lead evidence, if respondent No.1 is guilty of withdrawing from the society of her husband.
The petitioner has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and the minot child.
The petitioner is admittedly, running a repair shop and is a black smith.
Even a daily wage earner can earn Rs.5000-6000/- per month.
I do not find any error much less illegality or infirmity in the order passed Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.08.07 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Misc.
not M-25039 of 2013 -3- by the trial Court assessing earnings of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.
The prices of daily necessities of life are increasing day by day.
The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents and Rs.1500/- towards rental of accommodation may not be sufficient to meet their day to day requirements what to talk of amenities and luxuries of life.
In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.
(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 02, 2013 PARAMJIT Saini Paramjit Kaur 2013.08.07 14:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh