Harjinder Singh vs Amarjeet Kaur

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal revision is lodged against the judgment and order 11.02.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 172 of 2012 " Amarjeet Kaur vs. Harjinder Singh ", whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and the revisionist has been directed to give Rs. 3,000/- per month, as maintenance, to the respondent from the date of order.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the marriage of the revisionist and respondent was solemnized on 11.06.2008. He submitted that the respondent, after sometime of marriage, filed a divorce petition in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and obtained ex- parte decree and the marriage between the revisionist and respondent was dissolved vide order dated

06.01.2012. He argued that the respondent herself obtained divorce against the revisionist, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the revisionist. He submitted that the revisionist is merely doing the labour work and his father has also evicted him from his property. He submitted that the learned Court below has assumed the income of the revisionist by assuming him a skilled labour as Rs. 9-10 thousand per month, however, the revisionist is not having any skill and, at present, the income of revisionist is not more than Rs. 4000/- per month. He argued that the learned Court below has erred in law while deciding the application of the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has not followed the correct principle of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Court below has rightly fixed the amount of maintenance. He submitted that the order impugned needs no interference of this Court and the revision filed by the revisionist deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

Though, the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar has observed that the respondent has not placed any documentary evidence on record regarding income of the revisionist and has not submitted any property detail of the revisionist; but, the revisionist, in his statement itself, has categorically

stated that he is merely doing labour work. The learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, by treating the revisionist as skilled worker, has assumed the income of the revisionist as Rs. 9-10 thousand per month. It is true that no documentary evidence was led by the respondent before the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, regarding the income of the revisionist; but, considering the fact that the revisionist, has himself, admitted the fact that he is doing the labour work, in my view, the income of the revisionist was rightly fixed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar as Rs. 9-10 thousand per month. Even today, the minimum wage fixed is approximately Rs. 250/- per day. In such circumstances, the income would come around Rs. 7,500/- per month and the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar has not committed any illegality by awarding Rs. 3,000/- per month, as maintenance, to the respondent. I am of the firm view that the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the revisionist has not paid any amount of maintenance to the respondent so far. Respondent would be at liberty to file an execution application before the Court below.

The Criminal Revision stands dismissed.