RAMESH KUMAR Vs. SHUSHMA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 720 of 1989 and Criminal Misc. 2967 of 1990. Both these petitions arise out of the proceedings instituted by Smt. Sushma Rani and her infant child against Ramesh Kumar under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Sushma Rani was married to Ramesh Kumar on October 25,1987. The parties have not been living together since October 1988. A son was born on October 18, 1988. The wile filed a petition under Section 125 on January 28, 1989, claiming Rs. 500/- per mensem as maintenance for herself and an equal amount for her minor son. The husband is employed in CBI and, according to the wife, he was getting Rs. 1,800/- per mensem as emoluments. In the written statement filed by the husband, it was stated that his carry home salary was Rs. 1,300/- and he had to maintain aged parents. By order dated June 9, 1989, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, fixed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per mensem for the wife and Rs. 200/- per mensem for the minor son. The amount was made payable from the date of the main petition. The husband filed Criminal Revision noted above against the said order. By order dated November 9, 1989, the learned Magistrate finally disposed of the petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and fixed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- for the wife and at the rate of Rs. 200/- for the child. It is against the final order that Cri. Misc. No. 2967 of 1990 has been filed by the husband.

(3.) The contention of Shri Girish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that all along the husband was ready and willing to keep the wife and he could not, therefore, be asked to pay maintenance to the wife and the child. In support of his contention, learned counsel pointed out that the husband had filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, which was pending in the Court at Delhi. His second submission is that the amount fixed by the court is excessive. The husband has to support his old parents. He has also to meet the cost of litigation and at the time of admission of Criminal Misc. No. 2967 of 1990 this Court directed the arrears to be paid at the rate of Rs. 350/- per mensem. This order had since been complied with. Learned counsel also adverted to the fact that the maximum maintenance under the statute was Rs. 500/- per mensem and this indicated the broad policy of the Parliament and should have been taken into account in the case of a person with a very limited salary and liability to maintain aged parents.