SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. GAGANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed against the order dated 23.9.2010 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the revision petition of the petitioner filed against the order dated 13.6.2009 passed by the learned trial Magistrate granting interim maintenance @ `2,000/- per month to the respondent has been dismissed.

(2.) The parties are husband and wife. The respondent-wife claimed maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. for short). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala vide order dated 13.6.2009 awarded maintenance @ `2,000/- per month. The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed a revision petition (Annexure-P.2) in the Sessions Court at Patiala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide her order dated 23.9.2010 has dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner-husband has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is earning only `3,000/- per month and he is unable to pay maintenance @ `2,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the divorce proceedings in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`Act for short) are also pending between the parties. In the said petition, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act claiming interim maintenance. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide her order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure-P.4) has granted maintenance @ `1,800/- per month to the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that grant of maintenance @ `2,000/- per month is, in any case, excessive. Besides, the petitioner is not liable to pay the maintenance in both the proceedings. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the petition. It may be noticed that both the Courts below have granted interim maintenance only @ `2,000/- per month to the respondentwife. The petitioner is stated to be running a Subscriber Trunk Dialing Booth. The income of the same according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is `3,000/- per month. It is well known that able bodied men are expected to maintain their wives and look after them. Besides, the maintenance that has been awarded is only interim and subject to final order that is to be passed. The fact that in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act `1,800/- per month was awarded as maintenance is not of much consequence as the same is also interim in nature and payment of `200/- more is not so excessive so as to interfere with the orders of both the Courts below in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in her order dated 6.4.2010 (Annexure-P.4) while granting `1,800/- per month in proceedings in terms of Section 24 of the Act has observed that the maintenance received by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., if any, shall be adjustable against the maintenance granted in the petition under Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the amount being adjustable, it cannot be said that the petitioner is to pay the maintenance twice. The petitioner is liable to pay interim maintenance @ `2,000/- per month in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which would be adjustable towards the amount of maintenance payable in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act.