JAGTAR SINGH Vs. SATINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dtd. 24/2/2022 whereby the learned Family Court has granted the interim maintenance of Rs.8,000.00 per month to the respondent-wife. He has contended that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and thus, has drawn a wrong conclusion by granting interim maintenance of Rs.8,000.00 to the respondent-wife.

(2.) As per the facts of the case, the respondent-wife, Satinder Kaur was married with the petitioner on 15/8/2016 at Gurudwara Sahib Village Chaswal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. Admittedly, this was the second marriage of both the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner had a male child aged about 10 years namely, Sehajpreet from the previous marriage whereas, the respondent-wife had a daughter namely, Divpreet Kaur aged about 4 years. The petitioner-husband allegedly deserted the respondent-wife. The respondent-wife had no source of income and the petitioner being legally bound to maintain the respondent, she filed a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for granting the maintenance. Learned Family Court after hearing both the parties directed the petitioner to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.8,000.00 per month to the respondent-wife from the date of filing the application. It was further directed that if any amount due, the same shall be paid within two months from the date of passing of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the view taken by the learned Family Court is beyond the evidence on record and being against the settled law, deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, it was the second marriage of both the petitioner and the respondent, however, the petitioner is a truck driver and his source of income has not been taken into consideration by the Family Court. He submits that the respondent-wife had not approached the Court with clean hands as she has left the matrimonial home of her own and the petitioner is still ready to maintain her. He submits that the respondent has also filed a petition under Ss. 12, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 31 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and vide order dtd. 4/9/2019 passed therein, the petitioner had been directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 as maintenance to the respondent. He submits that the petitioner has also the responsibility of maintaining his son Sehajpreet Singh from the earlier marriage. He has submitted that income of the petitioner has also been misappreciated by the Family Court and in the overall facts and circumstances, the interim maintenance granted @ Rs.8,000.00 is totally against the evidence on record and the settled law and thus, deserves to be set aside.