Present: Mr. Ajay JaIn Advocate Vs. S. Balbir Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1094007
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnOct-09-2013
AppellantPresent: Mr. Ajay JaIn Advocate
RespondentS. Balbir Singh
Excerpt:
cr no.2673 of 2012 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.r.no.2673 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision: october 09, 2013 pushpinder kaur and others ..petitioners versus s. balbir singh ..respondent 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.ajay jain, advocate, for the petitioners.mr.s.s.godara, advocate, for the respondent. paramjeet singh, j. cm no.20063-cii of 2013 civil misc. application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. annexures p/6 and p/7 are taken on record. cr no.2673 of 2012 instant revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the orders dated 08.08.2011 (annexure p/4) passed by learned additional civil judge (senior kumar virender 2013.10.11 16:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.2673 of 2012 (o&m) 2 division) bathinda whereby application moved by the petitioners for grant of interim maintenance has been allowed and maintenance has been awarded @ rs.2000/- per month for wife - petitioner no.1 and rs.1500/- per month each for the minor sons i.e.petitioner no.2 and 3 and order dated 28.03.2012 (annexure p/5) passed by learned additional district judge, bathinda, whereby appeal filed against the order (annexure p/4) has been dismissed as withdrawn. brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the relationship of the parties is admitted. petitioner no.1 is wife and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are twin sons of respondent-defendant. the petitioner filed suit under order 33 rule 1 cpc as indigent person for fixing maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs @ rs.6000/- each per month total rs.18,000/- per month for all the petitioners-plaintiffs under the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956. along with suit, application for interim maintenance was also moved. during the pendency of the suit, interim maintenance has been awarded vide impugned order dated 08.08.2011 (annexure p/4) by the trial court at the rate of rs.2000/- per month for wife - petitioner no.1 and rs.1500/- per month each for the minor sons i.e.petitioner no.2 and 3 from the date of order. against the order (annexure p/4).petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned additional district judge, however, having doubt regarding the maintainability of appeal, the same was withdrawn. hence, this revision petition. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the kumar virender 2013.10.11 16:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.2673 of 2012 (o&m) 3 record. learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of interim maintenance has been fixed at lower side. admittedly, respondent is government servant and is employed as head teacher in government senior secondary school, randhawa, district sirsa. as per salary slip for the month of july, 2013 (annexure p/7).total salary of respondent is rs.37,873/-. petitioners are entitled to 3/4th of salary as maintenance. moreover, the interim maintenance ought to have been awarded from the date of application, whereas it has been awarded from the date of order. per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that order passed by learned trial court is based on evidence. the net salary of the respondent even as per latest salary slip is around rs.24,000/-. as such, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. having considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the considered opinion that maintenance awarded is on lower side specially in these days of inflation. moreover, sufficient funds are required for education and upbringing of minor children. in the facts and circumstances of this case, i deem it fit and proper to enhance the interim maintenance to rs.9000/- per month to be paid to petitioner no.1 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 proportionately. the same shall be payable from the date of filing of the application. arrears of maintenance @ rs.9000/- per month shall be paid within three months kumar virender 2013.10.11 16:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cr no.2673 of 2012 (o&m) 4 from today, however, the amount already paid shall be adjusted towards the arrears.disposed of in the above terms.october 09, 2013 [ paramjeet singh ].vkd judge kumar virender 2013.10.11 16:45 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

CR No.2673 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2673 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 09, 2013 Pushpinder Kaur and others ..Petitioners Versus S.

Balbir Singh ..Respondent 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.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Mr.S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the respondent.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

CM No.20063-CII of 2013 Civil Misc.

application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Annexures P/6 and P/7 are taken on record.

CR No.2673 of 2012 Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Kumar Virender 2013.10.11 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2673 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Division) Bathinda whereby application moved by the petitioners for grant of interim maintenance has been allowed and maintenance has been awarded @ Rs.2000/- per month for wife - petitioner no.1 and Rs.1500/- per month each for the minor sons i.e.petitioner no.2 and 3 and order dated 28.03.2012 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby appeal filed against the order (Annexure P/4) has been dismissed as withdrawn.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the relationship of the parties is admitted.

Petitioner no.1 is wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are twin sons of respondent-defendant.

The petitioner filed suit under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC as indigent person for fixing maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs @ Rs.6000/- each per month total Rs.18,000/- per month for all the petitioners-plaintiffs under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Along with suit, application for interim maintenance was also moved.

During the pendency of the suit, interim maintenance has been awarded vide impugned order dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure P/4) by the trial Court at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month for wife - petitioner no.1 and Rs.1500/- per month each for the minor sons i.e.petitioner no.2 and 3 from the date of order.

Against the order (Annexure P/4).petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, however, having doubt regarding the maintainability of appeal, the same was withdrawn.

Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Kumar Virender 2013.10.11 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2673 of 2012 (O&M) 3 record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amount of interim maintenance has been fixed at lower side.

Admittedly, respondent is Government servant and is employed as Head Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Randhawa, District Sirsa.

As per salary slip for the month of July, 2013 (Annexure P/7).total salary of respondent is Rs.37,873/-.

Petitioners are entitled to 3/4th of salary as maintenance.

Moreover, the interim maintenance ought to have been awarded from the date of application, whereas it has been awarded from the date of order.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that order passed by learned trial Court is based on evidence.

The net salary of the respondent even as per latest salary slip is around Rs.24,000/-.

As such, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that maintenance awarded is on lower side specially in these days of inflation.

Moreover, sufficient funds are required for education and upbringing of minor children.

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I deem it fit and proper to enhance the interim maintenance to Rs.9000/- per month to be paid to petitioner no.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 proportionately.

The same shall be payable from the date of filing of the application.

Arrears of maintenance @ Rs.9000/- per month shall be paid within three months Kumar Virender 2013.10.11 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No.2673 of 2012 (O&M) 4 from today, however, the amount already paid shall be adjusted towards the arreaRs.Disposed of in the above terMs.October 09, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ].vkd Judge Kumar Virender 2013.10.11 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document