CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Kulwant Singh alias Chhinda alias Paramjit Singh vs Sukhwinder Kaur

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 December 1987 · Citation: (1988) 1 AICLR 722 : (1988) 1 RCR(Criminal) 214

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ujagar Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6040-M of 1987
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 364 words

Ujagar Singh, J.

1.

The respondent in this case filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called the Code) for the award of maintenance against the petitioner. The grounds which have been given in the petition have been found to be correct by the trial Court and by the revisional Court also.

2.

The petitioner has challenged the grant of maintenance vide orders of the Courts below on facts as well as on quantum of maintenance. After hearing arguments on 24.9.1987, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I did not agree to interfere so far as the questions of fact leading to the quantum of maintenance to the respondent herein were concerned and issued notice to the respondent only on the quantum of maintenance.

3.

The learned counsel for petitioner here has argued that the trial Court, after discussing the evidence on record, has given a finding as under :

".......Even if the income of the respondent is taken to be Rs. 300/ he has to make the payment out of this amount for maintenance to the petitioner......."

Out of the probable income, the trial Court fixed an amount of Rs. 150/ p.m. from the date of filing of this application against the present petitioner.

4.

The revisional Court has concurred in the findings of the trial Court and did not interfere in amount fixed as maintenance to the present respondent.

5.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 150/ p.m. out of the probable income of Rs. 300/ p.m. is on the higher side, in view of the fact that the petitioner seems to be a labour who may not get regular labour employment throughout the year. Even if the income of the petitioner is taken to be Rs. 400/ p.m., Rs. 125/ would be a little less than 1/3rd of the income.

6.

In these circumstances, I deem it fit to fix an amount of Rs. 125/ p.m. as maintenance to the respondent from the date of application before the trial Court. This petition is, therefore, partially accepted and stands disposed of.