MOHINDER SINGH Vs. BALJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 7/8/2023 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, (Camp Court), Rajpura (hereinafter to be referred as the 'impugned order') wherein, while deciding an application for interim maintenance, the Family Court has directed the petitioner (herein)-husband to pay interim maintenance to the respondent (herein)-wife to the tune of Rs.3,000.00 per month from the date of the filing of the application before the said Court &onetime litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, while assailing the impugned order, has iterated that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of Sec. 125(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973, as it is clear from the factual matrix of the matter that the wife was living in adultery &hence she was not entitled to any interim maintenance. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has relied upon the photographs (copies whereof have been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition) which, as per the learned counsel, clearly show that the respondent (herein) is either married or living in some kind of connubial relationship with one Karampal Singh s/o Harmel Singh. To solidify this argument, the learned counsel has further referred to a copy of the memo of parties of a complaint case filed by the respondent (herein) - wife wherein she herself has stated that she is living with the said Karampal Singh. It has been further submitted that, assuming arguendo, the husband is liable to pay interim maintenance to wife then the quantum of interim maintenance assessed is on the higher side keeping in view the fact that the petitioner (herein) is earning only Rs.35.0040,000/- per month. Thus, setting-aside of the impugned order has been sought for.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the plea of adultery raised on behalf of the petitioner (herein) cannot be looked into at the stage of adjudication of the interim maintenance which is akin to a protem arrangement. It has been further submitted that, even if such a plea is raisable at this stage, at the instance of the husband, there is no cogent material available on record to substantiate the case of the husband that the wife is living in adultery. Learned counsel has further argued that, keeping in view the admitted stand of the petitioner (herein)-husband in his affidavit furnished before the Family Court stating that his monthly income is Rs.35.0040,000/- per month, the interim maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs.3,000.00 per month from the date of application cannot be said to be on the higher side. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition has been sought for.