VIJAY KUMAR Vs. TAMANNA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has assailed order dated 22.10.2019, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Family Court Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Petition No. 32/19/2018, titled as Tamana Sharma an another Vs. Vijay Kumar filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance by the respondents herein, which has been allowed by the said Court in the following terms:

(2.) Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same has been passed without appreciating that the petitioner was not having any means of income so as to comply with the order so passed by it. He further argued that what weighed with the learned Court below was the fact that the petitioner was running a spare parts shop and was also having vehicles, but learned Court erred in not appreciating that the petitioner was suffering from serious disease and he was under heavy debts. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Court below be quashed and set aside and the petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be dismissed.

(3.) Opposing the petition, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the maintenance amount which has been granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Court below is a reasonable one. An amount of Rs.7000/- only has been granted as maintenance in favour of the wife and minor daughter in the share of Rs.4000/- and Rs.3000/-, respectively, which by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be either on higher side or exaggerated. He further submitted that the petitioner is a man of means and his contention that he is not in a position to pay the amount of maintenance, as directed by the learned Court below, on account of illness etc., are lame excuses and do not have any merit. Mr. Palsra has further argued that otherwise also as the claimants happens to be the wife and minor daughter of the petitioner, he is both legally and morally bound to maintain them.