ASHISH BHATEJA Vs. PRIYANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') assailing the order dated 21.01.2015 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka whereby respondent -wife has been awarded interim maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/ - per month from the date of filing the application and the order dated 06.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka whereby revision filed by the petitioner -husband against the order dated 21.01.2015 has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that parties fell in love and marriage between them was solemnized on 16.01.2013 by way of Anand Karj at Ram Palace, Fazilka. The relations between the parties became strained as a result of which the respondent herein i.e. wife filed petition under Section 125 of the Code claiming maintenance from the petitioner -husband with the averments that he has neglected to maintain her and treated her with cruelty and she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner -husband in the end of May 2013. Along with the petition under Section 125 of the Code, the respondent herein filed an application seeking interim maintenance from the petitioner -husband. Vide impugned order dated 21.01.2015, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka allowed the application for interim maintenance and awarded Rs. 6,000/ - per month to the respondent -wife from the date of filing the application. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner -husband filed revision which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide impugned order dated 06.06.2015. Hence, this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no dowry article was given in the marriage as the same was outcome of love affair between the parties. He further contended that both the courts below have wrongly assessed the monthly income of the petitioner and also ignored the factum of resignation given by the petitioner -husband. He further contended that the respondent -wife is a qualified educated lady and cannot claim maintenance as she is having capacity to earn her living, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. On the other hand, the petitioner is unemployed at present. No document showing the earning of petitioner -husband has been placed on record by the respondent. The impugned orders are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon Mamta vs. Rajesh, 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 588 and Sanjay Bhardwaj and others vs. State & Another : 2010 (7) R.C.R (Criminal) 1287.