DALBIR SINGH Vs. GURNAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the orders dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure P -5) and dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P -7). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in awarding the maintenance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 4,000/ - per month from the date of the filing of the application as in the year 2004 petitioner was getting only Rs. 4,000/ - per month by way of pension. It is only in the year 2010 that the pension of the petitioner was enhanced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the father of the petitioner owned three acres of land. Petitioner was having three brothers and seven sisters.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that petitioner had failed to pay maintenance to the respondent with effect from the year 2008 onwards. Petitioner also owned land and was getting pension on account of his service rendered with the army. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner got married to the respondent on 10.9.1982. However, no child was born to the parties. Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The question that requires consideration is only with regard to quantum of maintenance which was liable to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. During the pendency of the petition, admittedly, petitioner was allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month. The Trial Court while disposing of the main petition vide order dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure P -5) allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per month to the respondent from the date of the application. The said order was upheld in a revision filed by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 1.8.2011 (Annexure P -7). A perusal of the pension record, placed on record as Annexures P -3 and P -4, reveals that in the year 2004, petitioner was getting pension to the tune of Rs. 3201/ - per month. Thereafter, the pension of the petitioner was revised from time to time. Thus, in the present case, the Trial Court erred in allowing maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/ - per month from the date of the application. Rather, ends of justice require that the respondent be allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per month from the date of the order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the petition, respondent was allowed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month and the petitioner is liable to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month for the said period. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this petition is disposed of with a direction that order passed by the Trial dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure P -5) is modified to the extent that the respondent would be entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per month from the date of the said order and during the pendency of the petition, she will be liable to claim interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ - per month.