SUKHJEET KAUR & ANOTHER Vs. TARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners namely Sukhjeet Kaur wife of Taranjit Singh and Diljashan Singh, minor son of Taranjit Singh, have filed the instant petition under Sections 482 CrPC for enhancement of the amount of maintenance by modifying the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura and order dated 18.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

(2.) The parents of petitioner no.1 had performed a good marriage by spending Rs.10,25,000/- and had given sufficient dowry articles at the time of marriage. However, after the marriage, respondent- husband and his family members started harassing the petitioner no.1 on the ground that she has brought less dowry. It is stated that the petitioner no.1 is doing M.Sc. (IT) from Punjab Technical University Learning Centre at Zirakpur, but the petitioners have no source of income and are unable to maintain themselves, whereas the respondent is working as Reliance Recovery Agent and as well as a property dealer and as such, he is earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. He also possesses sufficient agricultural land at Village Mathiara, Tehsil Rajpura. The petitioner has lodged FIR No.12 dated 3.2.2008 under Sections 406/498-A/506/323 IPC against the respondent and his parents.

(3.) The petitioners have filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance allowance which was contested by the respondent-husband, wherein the relationship of the parties has been admitted. However, it has been denied that the parents of the petitioners have spent Rs.10,25,000/- on marriage. It has been submitted that the marriage was simple one and no marriage articles were given to the respondent and his parents. The salary certificate of the respondent was also attached, showing his monthly salary at Rs.13,000/- per month and it was submitted even if the respondent is not working in any company, he being a qualified person can earn higher than this amount if he takes up a new job at a new place, whereas, learned counsel for the respondent contested the petition before the trial Court and submitted that owing to various litigations pending against him, the respondent was out of job and is now not earning to sustain his livelihood, what to talk of giving maintenance to the petitioners. He submitted that the salary certificate attached by the petitioners pertained to the year 2007, whereas the present petition was filed in November, 2008 and therefore, the said certificate is not relevant.