Skip to content


Crm No. M-41876 of 2013(Oandm) Vs. Manjit Kaur --respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantCrm No. M-41876 of 2013(Oandm)
RespondentManjit Kaur --respondent
Excerpt:
.....her mother-in-law. during the pendency of such complaint respondent filed application for grant of interim maintenance under section 23 of the act claiming a sum of rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance and an amount of rs.4,000/- per month towards rent for separate accommodation and praying in the alternative for directing her husband to provide accommodation in the shared household. vide order dated 8.5.2013 (annexure p-3) the j.m.i.c., ambala disposed of the application filed by the wife and directed the husband jaswinder singh to pay a sum of rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint and further issued directions to pay a sum of rs.1500/- per month to the complainant for acquiring an alternate rental accommodation and gave liberty to the wife to take.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-41876 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: 22.1.2014.

Jaswinder Singh --Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:- Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The respondent namely Smt.

Manjit Kaur instituted a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19 and 20 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after to be referred as the Act) in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala raising allegations of domestic violence against her husband Jaswinder Singh as also her mother-in-law.

During the pendency of such complaint respondent filed application for grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance and an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent for separate accommodation and praying in the alternative for directing her husband to provide accommodation in the shared household.

Vide order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-3) the J.M.I.C., Ambala disposed of the application filed by the wife and directed the husband Jaswinder Singh to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the complaint and further issued directions to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to the complainant for acquiring an alternate rental accommodation and gave liberty to the wife to take rental accommodation Lucky 2014.01.30 10:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No.M-41876 of 2013(O&M) -2- of her own choice.

In a revision preferred by the complainant/wife, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P-4).the interim maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing the complaint and the amount of rent granted by the learned Magistrate has been maintained.

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the husband namely Jaswinder Singh impugning both the orders i.e.order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by the J.M.I.C, Ambala as also the order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P-4).passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala enhancing the amount of interim maintenance to Rs.5,000/- per month.

Mr.Malkeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband has raised a two fold submission.

It has been argued that the courts below have ignored the fact that the respondent/wife had been residing with the petitioner in the joint matrimonial home and as such, she was not entitled to maintenance as also rent from the date of the complaint but the same, if at all, could have been granted from the date of passing of the order.

The second submission raised by counsel is that the interim maintenance that has been enhanced in terms of the impugned order dated 30.10.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month is totally without any basis and justification and rather has been passed on conjectures and surmises.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that no basis for interference is made out.

CRM No.M-41876 of 2013(O&M) -3- The application that the respondent/wife had submitted before the C.J.M., Ambala for grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act during the pendency of the main complaint, has been placed on record at Annexure P-1.

The categoric case and claim made out in the application is that inspite of the wife living in the joint family with the husband in the matrimonial home and the husband and mother-in-law having sufficient source of income, yet, the husband was not paying any amount to her or her minor son, who is studying in 8th Class.

It had further been contended in the application that faced with no other alternative the wife had been constrained to join as Teacher in a private school and was getting Rs.1700/- per month as salary which also was not sufficient for sustenance and as such, she was dependent upon the mercy of her own parents to meet the necessary day to day expenses.

Section 23 of the Act reads in the following terms:- “23.

Power to grant interim and ex-parte ordeRs.(1)In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

(2)If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.”

.

Under the statutory provision power has been vested with the Magistrate to pass such interim orders towards grant of interim maintenance as it is deemed just and proper.

In the facts of the present case the CRM No.M-41876 of 2013(O&M) -4- Magistrate while granting interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month has directed the payment w.e.f the date of filing of the application.

There is no bar under the statutory provisions of the Act to grant maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

Such order of interim maintenance granted w.e.f.the date of filing of the application on the face of it seems just and proper as the respondent wife had clearly set out a claim that inspite of living in the joint matrimonial home she was being utterly neglected and not being paid even for the essential needs and sustenance for herself as also for her minor son.

In so far as the quantum of interim maintenance having been enhanced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- is concerned, the respondent/wife had placed on file before the learned Magistrate a photocopy of the salary statement of the husband (present petitioner) and which had not been objected to by him and which in turn reflected a gross salary in excess of Rs.22,000/- per month.

This fact has been taken specific note of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in the impugned order dated 30.10.2013 while enhancing the ad interim maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month.

Merely on account of the fact that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala while enhancing such maintenance has put in an observation that “these are days of rising prices”.

cannot be made a basis for finding a fault therein.

Against the established fact having come on record of the husband/petitioner drawing a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month grant of ad interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month for the wife cannot be considered as unreasonable.

Even otherwise, the sum of Rs.1500/- per month granted to the respondent towards rent is to be given to the respondent/wife only if she CRM No.M-41876 of 2013(O&M) -5- vacates the matrimonial house and the same has also been directed to be payable by the respondent/petitioner from the date of passing of the order by the J.M.I.C, Ambala i.e.8.5.2013.

In an overview of the matter, no patent infirmity or illegality is found in the impugned ordeRs.For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE January 22, 2014.

lucky


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //