YASHPAL SINGH Vs. ANITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 23/8/2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'concerned Family Court') praying for setting-aside of the said order. Vide the impugned order; the respondent-wife has been awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000.00 per month to be paid by the petitioner-husband (herein) from the date of the institution of the application alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.3300.00. The respondent (herein) had filed a petition, under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Family Court, stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner (herein) and is unable to maintain herself and hence the interim maintenance ought to be awarded to her.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has iterated that the Family Court did not consider that the respondent-wife has not only left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause but also abandoned her two minor daughters, who were then aged about 4 years and 3 years respectively. Furthermore, the younger daughter is suffering from a permanent hearing impairment, which has also negatively affected her ability to speak. It has been further iterated by the learned counsel that while assessing the quantum of interim maintenance, the Family Court did not take into consideration that, in addition to expenditure on school fees, books and other expenses for both children; the petitioner is also bearing the costs of the treatment of the younger daughter, which involves visits to various speech and hearing rehabilitation clinics and the purchase of costly assistive devices. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent is a qualified lady, holding a B.A. degree as also a Postgraduate Diploma in Computer Application (PGDCA). According to learned counsel, the Family Court has not considered the aspect that the respondent-wife is running a tuition center and earning approximately Rs.15,000.00 per month. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the father of the petitioner is running a small workshop manufacturing iron gates and grills, where the petitioner is employed. According to learned counsel, the father of the petitioner is a heart patient and has undergone bypass surgery whereas the mother of the petitioner also suffers from various health issues requiring ongoing medical expenses. According to learned counsel, the income from the workshop is barely sufficient to support the petitioner, his two minor daughters and his elderly parents. In contrast, the respondent, being well-educated, has adequate resources to support herself. It has been further iterated that the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home on unreasonable grounds and hence the application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is not maintainable per se. However, the learned Family Court has disregarded the financial responsibilities of the petitioner-husband and granted the interim maintenance to the respondent-wife. Thus, it has been prayed that the impugned order is patently illegal and suffers from material infirmities and hence liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the learned Family Court has rightly allowed the application seeking interim maintenance as the respondent-wife neither has any source of income to maintain herself nor any movable or immovable property in her name. Furthermore, the Family Court has determined the quantum of maintenance based on the calculation of the income of the petitioner as also taken due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.