Mamta CR-2983-2014 1 2014.05.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2983-2014 Date of Decision: May 15, 2014 Balraj Singh ...Petitioner Versus Manjit Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** 1.
To be referred to the Reporter?.
2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J (Oral) Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is owner of 5.5 acres of cultivable agricultural land in District Fatehabad, the Court can take judicial notice that such acreage would produce sufficient agricultural tax free income to be able to support maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the matrimonial court to meet and defray the day to day expenses of the wife and their minor daughter living separately.
The interim maintenance fixed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad by the impugned order dated 22.01.2014 ex-facie appears reasonable and has been fixed by a well reasoned order even if it includes the larger land holding that is not in the name of the petitioner but of his family membeRs.The total family holding is their commonwealth.
I find no sufficient reason to interfere with the interim dispensation.
However, it appears that the previous order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tohana on Mamta CR-2983-2014 2 2014.05.19 10:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 28.11.2013 granting interim allowance of Rs.4,500/- per month to the respondent/wife in proceedings which arose from proceedings initiated by the respondent wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was not brought to the notice of the family court.
If this fact was known to the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, I have no doubt the same would have been considered in drawing up an interim maintenance order.
If this was the position then the petitioner would be at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the matrimonial Court for it to consider making a suitable deduction from the maintenance awarded by the matrimonial Court so that both the orders can co-exist happily.
The petitioner is granted liberty to apply to the matrimonial Court for reconsideration of the impugned order on this aspect.
With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 15.05.2014 JUDGE mamta