CRR No.1426 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.1426 of 2012 (O & M) Date of decision:01.08.2014 Deepak Kumar ...Petitioner(s) Versus Smt.
Khusboo and another ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.D.K.Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.T.C.Dhanwal, Advocate, for the respondents.
***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
(ORAL) CRM No.28541 of 2012 Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM No.11584 of 2014 Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM No.11585 of 2014 Allowed, as prayed for.
Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on Kumar Parveen 2014.08.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1426 of 2012 -2- record.
CRR No.1426 of 2012 Instant revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by learned District Judge (Family Court).Bhiwani whereby a sum of ` 6,000/- per month and ` 3,000/- per month have been awarded to respondents, respectively from the date of filing of petition.
The respondents in the present petition filed petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Family Court with certain averments which are not necessary to be mentioned.
Only issue which is to be determined as to how much maintenance is required to be provided to the present respondents.
The Family Court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that a sum of ` 6,000/- per month and ` 3,000/- per month are required to be paid to the respondents, respectively.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even the Family Court has relied upon the admission of petitioner wherein he admitted his income as ` 10,000/- to ` 15,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if this amount is treated as income of the petitioner, even then maintenance awarded to the respondents is on higher side.
Learned counsel further submits that an amount of ` 2,000/- has also been awarded to respondent no.1 in a Kumar Parveen 2014.08.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR No.1426 of 2012 -3- petition filed by her under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide order dated 02.02.2011 (Annexure P- 2).however, there is no specific direction that the said amount will be in addition to the amount already granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.Admittedly, the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and running a shop.
The petitioner has relied upon his income-tax returns (Annexures P-5 and P-6) whereas his income is shown to have been non-taxable.
As per the income-tax return (Annexure P-6).gross-income of the petitioner is ` 5,68,966/-, however, net profit is ` 1,92,016/- It is common knowledge that a shopkeeper does not depict true income in his income- tax return.
Keeping in view the amount as shown in the income-tax return (Annexure P-6) and expenses which a wife and minor child have to incur, this Court deems it fit and appropriate that amount as awarded by the Family Court as maintenance to the respondents, vide impugned order, is justified one.
Otherwise also, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the Family Court.
Instant petition is devoid of merit.
The maintenance, if any, granted under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall be adjustable in the amount of maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C.Disposed of in the aforementioned terMs.(PARAMJEET SINGH) 01.08.2014 JUDGE parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2014.08.06 13:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document