Gurjant Singh and Others Vs. - Court Judgment

CRR-1440-2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.

Revision No.1440 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 08, 2014.

Gurjant Singh and others ..........PETITIONER(s).VERSUS Paramjit Kaur ........RESPONDENT(s).CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.PKS Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner (s).******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) CRM No.14759 of 2014 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CRR No.1440 of 2014.

Heard.

In the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005') the trial Court dismissed the application of respondent Paramjit Kaur claiming interim maintenance vide order dated 04.04.2013.

In appeal, the respondent was allowed interim maintenance @ `2,000 per month from the date of filing of the application.

In this petition, the petitioner Gurjant Singh-husband and Mehta Sachin 2014.05.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR-1440-2014 -2- others have challenged the order of the appellate Court dated 22.03.2014 Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that matrimonial dispute with respondent was settled through compromise in Lok Adalat on 16.10.2004 whereby one half of the portion of house was given to Satwinder Singh, son of petitioner Gurjant Singh and respondent Paramjit Kaur.

Thereafter a writing was executed on 02.06.2006 to partition that house.

After ten years of that settlement in the year 2004, respondent has moved an application under Section 23 of the Act of 2005.

During the period from 2004 to 2014, she has not claimed any maintenance.

Admittedly, the respondent is the wife of petitioner No.1.

As wife, she has a right to claim maintenance from her husband.

In the Lok Adalat, the statement of Surjit Singh and Balbir Kaur along with Gurjant Singh was recorded which is reproduced as follows:- “States that our son Gurjant Singh and our daughter in law Paramjit Kaur had entered into a compromise that the both have started living together and the house bearing No.24447 measuring 350 sq.

Yard and its half share, back side which is constructed we are giving it to our grandson Satwinder Singh son of Gurjant Singh and we will not sell his half share and the disowning which we have issued regarding our son and grandson we will withdraw it.”

.

The writing dated 02.06.2006 whereby that house was Mehta Sachin 2014.05.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRR-1440-2014 -3- partitioned also speak of no settlement regarding a right of respondent to claim maintenance from her husband.

The mere fact that a house has been given for residence to the son of respondent, do not defeat the right of respondent to claim maintenance from her husband.

The contention that she has not claimed this right for a long period of ten yeaRs.does not result in defeating her right.

The amount of `2,000 per month as interim maintenance allowed to the respondent is also not excessive keeping in view the high cost of living these days.

There is no merit in this petition and hence, the same is dismissed.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) May 08, 2014.

JUDGE Sachin M.

Mehta Sachin 2014.05.15 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH