DEVINDER SINGH Vs. JOGINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the instant petition has been laid to the order dated 10.02.2015 passed by the trial court, Jalandhar whereby, maintenance has been allowed to the respondent-wife @ Rs.8000/- per month from the date of the application (i.e. 20.07.2009), apart from providing Rs.5000/- per month for the rental accommodation, as well as to the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal.

(2.) Brief facts as stated are that a marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20.05.1979, out of which wedlock one daughter and one son were born. The daughter has since been married and the son is residing with the petitioner-husband. The said marriage could not survive the test of time, resultantly, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of maintenance against the petitioner-husband on 27.03.2009 at Chandigarh, which petition came to be allowed 21.10.2014 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh. The respondent-wife had been allowed maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month from the date of the order and from the date of the application till the date of the order, the respondent-wife had been allowed interim maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month, apart from litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The said order passed by the JMIC, Chandigarh under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was challenged by both the parties by filing their respective revisions, however, both the revisions came to be dismissed by the Judge Special Court, Chandigarh on 11.03.2016.

(3.) After the filing of the said petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the respondent-wife also filed an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act at Jalandhar (for short 'D.V. Act') against the petitioner-husband on 20.07.2019, which application came to be allowed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar on 10.02.2015. The JMIC, Jalandhar took note of the maintenance amount of Rs.8000/- per month already allowed by the JMIC, Chandigarh in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and allowed the said amount to the respondent-wife from the date of the application (as moved under the DV Act), apart from litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. However, liberty had been given to the petitioner-husband to pay the said amount either in the petition filed under the D.V. Act or lieu of the order passed by the JMIC, Chandigarh. Besides this, the petitioner-husband was also directed to provide rented accommodation to the respondent-wife at Chandigarh, up to the extent of Rs.5000/- per month, within two months from the date of the said order. The said order passed under the DV Act was challenged by the petitioner-husband in appeal, however, the appeal came to be dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Now, both the said orders passed by the courts below under the DV Act have been challenged in this petition by the petitioner-husband.