Brij Inder Mohan vs Pushpa Devi

Ujagar Singh, J.

Shrimati Pushpa Devi, wife and her 3 daughters, namely, Kirti (Benu), Dipti (Puchi) and Suman (Nikki), filed application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against her husband Brij Inder Mohan, for the grant of maintenance to them. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the husband, revisionpetitioner herein, had moved an application for the custody of the 3 daughters before the Guardian Judge, Amritsar and therefore it cannot be held that he had, neglected the minor daughters also. It was also observed that Smt. Pushpa Devi, respondent No. 1 herein, was a regular Government teacher and getting regular salary. It has been admitted by her that minordaughters are being maintained by her. She has voluntarily chosen to keep these children with her. It is also an admitted fact that Smt. Pushpa Devi was getting a sum of Rs. 200/ p.m. as maintenance from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar in proceedings u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act initiated by the husband. All the 4 respondents moved a revision petition before the Court of Session. After hearing the parties, the Additional Sessions judge, Amritsar came to the conclusion that the husband was bound to maintain minor respondents 2 to 4. With regard to the income the husband had conceded that he was the soleproprietor of M/s. Book Lovers Retreat, Hall Bazar, Amritsar; a partner in M/s. Kiran Ice Factory & Cold Store and M/s. Sharma Paper and Card Board Factory wherein investment was of about Rs. 8,58,000/ and the share of the revision petitioner was to the extent of 30 percent. The husbandpetitioner also admitted that he was a partner in an ice factory and cold storage. Thus calculating, it was held that the net income of the husbandpetitioner could not be less than Rs. 4,000/ p.m With this calculation in mind, respondents 2 to 4 have been granted an amount of Rs. 150/ each p.m. as maintenance from the date of application.

The husbandpetitioner has moved this Court by a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in Amritsar due to disturbed conditions, there was not much of income earned by the petitioner. He has further argued that respondentwife was earning an amount of Rs. 1,000/ p.m. as emoluments from Government Service and she was also bound to contribute to the maintenance of respondents 2 to 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has laid stress on the quantum of property held by the petitioner, as mentioned in the order of the Court of Session.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no finding about the exact income given by. either of the Courts below. At the most the revisional Court has given an assessment and although the same cannot be said to be wrong, yet at the same time it is not proper to fix the same at that figure. I have considered this matter and am of the impression that the total maintenance amount payable by the husband petitioner comes to Rs. 650/ i.e. Rs. 150/ p.m per applicant respondents 2 to 4 in this petition and an amount of Rs. 200/ in the divorce proceedings to respondent No. 1. In view of the circumstances of this case, the amount of maintenance to each child (the ages of the children being 3, 6 and 9 years) is reduced to Rs. 125/ p.m. per child from the date of application u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Vide interim order, I had directed the petitionerhusband to deposit an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 100/ p.m. per child from the date of application before the hearing of this criminal revision, as, admittedly. he was prepared to pay that amount. That amount is said to have been deposited by him. The balance amount of arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125/ p.m. each to respondents 1 to 4 from the date of application, is directed to be paid within a period of two months from today.

The learned counsel for the respondents has urged at this stage that the respondents are likely to file a civil suit for maintenance and this order may not affect their right to claim a higher rate of maintenance in these proceedings. It is not disputed that this order has arisen out of summary proceedings and it is always open to the persons entitled to maintenance, to claim any amount which is deemed to be reasonable by the .civil court irrespective of the amount fixed in this order. This revision petition is dismissed with the foregoing modifications.

Revision dismissed.