OM PARKASH Vs. JAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. Misc. 22247 of 2017

(2.) In brief, the facts are, that the petitioner and the respondent solemnized a marriage around forty years ago and out of this wedlock a female child was born. After the respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home, she started to reside with her daughter in Karnal. Having no source of income, she filed a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking maintenance, along with an application for interim maintenance. The respondent-wife alleged that she has no source of income, whereas the petitioner has retired from HUDA and has a pension, hence she would be entitled to receive maintenance. The petitioner contested the matter stating that the respondent had not come to court with clean hands and in fact she had left the matrimonial home of her own accord. The District Judge Family Court, Karnal, held that the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of his pension received to his destitute wife as interim maintenance. Aggrieved against the said order the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Virender Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the maintenance, as assessed, is on the higher side as the petitioner has a pension of '9,500/- per month and has to maintain himself by paying for electricity, water and other commodities. It is submitted that a sum of '2,00,000/- had been deposited in the shape of a Fixed Deposit in favor of the respondent and apart from that he had given a sum of '1,00,000/- to her. It is submitted that he had given a sum of '10, 00,000/- to his son-in-law for purchasing a plot in Delhi and the entire transactions had been met out of his retiral benefits. It is argued that apart from transferring funds, a house was purchased in the name of the respondent and their daughter Munni Devi and the petitioner had transferred the said house in favor of her daughter. It is argued that the petitioner has a meager pension of '9,500/- per month. It is also argued that the District Judge, Family Court, has erred in awarding 50% of the pension when in fact pension cannot be attached. It was also brought to the notice of this court that condition warrants of arrest have been issued, vide order dated 12.9.2017, against the petitioner by the District Judge, Family Court, Karnal, during the pendency of the proceedings in the this Court, for not making payment of interim maintenance, under an application filed under Section 125 (3) of the Code.