POONAM BASSI Vs. SUDHAKAR BASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 praying for enhancement of maintenance awarded to the petitioner and her minor son by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala under section 12 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2.) In brief, the petitioner married respondent No. 1 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.9.1999 at Patiala. After their marriage, they resided at Rewari where respondent No. 1 was posted with Bharat Petroleum. A baby boy was born on 04.11.2000. On account of ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short) and examined herself, her brother and other witnesses to prove her case. The trial Court by order dated 22.08.2012 held that the petitioner had suffered domestic violence at the hands of respondents and assessed amount of maintenance @ L 12,000/- per month for her and the minor son. Aggrieved against the said judgment, both parties filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed by order dated 11.11.2013 and the maintenance amount was enhanced to L 20,000/- per month of which L 15,000/- was granted to the petitioner and L 5,000/- was granted to the minor son from the date of the order passed by the trial Court that is 22.08.2012. The appeal filed by the respondent-husband was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said enhancement, being inadequate, the instant petition has been preferred, while the respondent has not challenged the dismissal order.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the amount of maintenance as assessed at L 20,000/- per month is inadequate, while pointing out that respondent No. 1 herein is earning a gross salary of about L 1,50,000/- per month. It is argued that as per Exhibit CW5/B which is Form 16, the gross salary of the respondent-husband has been shown to be L 11,50,036.49/- for the financial year 2008-2009, while also submitting that the respondent no. 1 had admitted to earning a gross salary of L 1,30,000/- per month in proceedings which had been filed before the High Court seeking divorce. It is argued that respondent No. 1 has no liability other than the moral obligation of maintaining the petitioner and the minor child. It is argued that respondent No. 2, father-in-law of the petitioner, has an independent source of income in the form of his pension. It is submitted that the minor son is getting good education and a sum of L 5,000/- per month towards his education as monthly expenditure is wholly inadequate.