JAGDISH KUMAR BHAKRI Vs. MANJU BHAKRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO separate revision petitions have been preferred against the order dated 21.09.2010, passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad who allowed the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/ - per month to the wife, payable from the date of filing of the petition. The husband is aggrieved as the amount allowed to the wife was on the higher side. The wife is seeking modification and enhancement of the amount.

(2.) IT is necessary to recapitulate the facts and give a brief narration. Manju and Jagdish were married in 1978. Two children were born to them in 1980 and 1983. The husband was working in Bank of Baroda in Punjab. The husband got transferred to various places and lastly in 1992 the family settled in Faridabad. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in 2007. The wife had undergone a gallbladder operation in June, 1992. Her sister had come to stay with them. The wife levelled allegations against her sister and alleged she and her husband were in a relationship and the husband started spending a huge amount on her. The wife objected to the frequent visits made by her husband to her sister's house. In 2005 their son shifted to Sonepat as he had got admission in a college. The parents also shifted temporarily to Sonepat and took a rented house. The husband refused to pay for the house -hold expenses. In March, 2006 they returned to Faridabad and the husband as by then taken voluntarily retirement. The petitioner claimed that her husband had retired from the bank and was getting Rs. 10,000/ - per month as pension and had received a sum of Rs. 17 lacs under the voluntarily retirement scheme. It was pleaded that the husband was working with M/s. APD Engineers and was getting Rs. 10,000/ - per month as salary. The petitioner was claiming Rs. 10,000/ - per month as maintenance besides litigation expenses.

(3.) WITH respect to the income, it was pleaded that they had completed the construction of the house in 1999 and the petitioner -wife had started business from home. It was pleaded that the husband had spent a lot of money on the business but the petitioner incurred losses. The respondent denied that he had joined a private job or was getting salary of Rs. 10,000/ - per month. In para No. 11 of the reply, the husband had given the details of the investments made from the sums received on retirement. It was pleaded that he was a pensioner and the pension was the only source of income.