105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5241 of 2014 Date of decision: August 13, 2014 Ankush Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Priyanka Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner Ankush Kumar has filed this revision petition against respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Addl.
District Judge, Fatehabad.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that interim maintenance granted to the respondent is excessive amount and secondly on the ground that respondent is already taking interim maintenance @ `3,000/- per month, which has been ordered by learned Magistrate in petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (for short “DV Act”.).After going through the record and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that the present revision petition is only regarding interim maintenance amount.
It is admitted at the time of arguments that petitioner is serving as a Govt.
Teacher.
The lower Court has also held that it is established that petitioner is working a Govt.
Teacher and earning more than `30,000/- per month.
Keeping VINEET GULATI201408.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.5241 of 2014 -2- in view the income of the petitioner, the interim maintenance of `4,000/- under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) granted to the respondent and `3,000/- under Section 26 of HMA granted to minor daughter, in no way can be held as excessive.
As regarding the averments in the order that this maintenance is in addition to the interim maintenance granted in other proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005, it is clarified that it is for the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class or the executing Court to see whether both the maintenance, as per law, can be claimed.
It is for the Judicial Magistrate to decide that amount of interim maintenance of `3,000/- granted in petition under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005, is to be recovered or is to be adjusted in the amount of maintenance granted in petition under HMA.
Learned Addl.
District Judge has no power to hold that present interim maintenance is in addition to interim maintenance in other proceedings.
The Judicial Magistrate may decrease or increase the amount in the DV Act or that maintenance may be only upto the disposal of that petition.
Learned Addl.
District Judge is to pass the order independently and then the maintenance is to be taken by the parties as per law.
It is settled law the maintenance can be granted in various proceedings but generally the petitioner is to take maintenance in one proceeding.
With the above-said observations, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
August 13, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI201408.20 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh