Manjit Singh vs Pardeep Kaur And Others

Sandeep Sharma, J

As per report of registry, notices issued to the respondents, stand served but despite service, none has come present on their behalf as such, they

are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

Instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, lays challenge to order dated 4.11.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge II Una, District Una, Himachal

Pradesh in Cr. Revision No. 53 of 2019, affirming order dated 1.4.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una, Himachal

Pradesh in Cr.MA Reg. No. 1134/17 in Pet. U/s 125 CrPC Regn. No. 38/17 titled Pardeep Kaur vs. Manjit Singh, whereby learned court below,

while allowing application under S.125 CrPC, having been filed by respondents herein directed the petitioner to pay Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.1 and

Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2, as interim maintenance till disposal of main petition.

Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that an application under S.125 CrPC came to be instituted on behalf of respondents,

who happen to be legally wedded wife and son respectively of petitioner, on the ground that petitioner has willfully neglected them for last one month

without reasonable excuse as such, they are compelled to live in parental house of respondent No.1. Respondents claimed that they are not able to

maintain themselves as they have no source of income. Respondents also claimed before learned court below that petitioner is earning Rs.45,000/- per

month by operating JCB. Besides above, respondents claimed before learned court below that petitioner is a trained driver and works at private taxi

stand.

During the pendency of the petition under S.125 CrPC, respondents herein also prayed for interim maintenance. Learned court below on the basis

of material adduced on record by respective parties, directed petitioner to pay Rs.4,000 to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/-to respondent No.2 on

account of interim maintenance during pendency of main petition.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by learned court below, petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge-II Una, Himachal Pradesh but same also came to be dismissed vide order dated 4.11.2019, as such, petitioner has approached this

court in the instant proceeding praying therein to set aside the orders granting interim maintenance passed by learned courts below.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record this court finds that there is no dispute inter se parties, that

respondent No.1 is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the son of the petitioner and respondent No.1. Petitioner has not

specifically refuted the allegation of respondents that they are being willfully and intentionally neglected by him for last one month. Petitioner claimed

before learned court below that he has been paying maintenance to the respondents regularly. He also claimed that in FIR No. 281 of 2017, police has

seized his passport as such, he is unable to go abroad to earn money.

Though in the case at hand, respondents claimed that the petitioner is earning Rs.45,000/-, which fact has been otherwise disputed by the petitioner

but no material wroth credence ever came to be placed on record by respondents to demonstrate that the petitioner earns Rs.45000/- per month.

Similarly, petitioner claimed before learned court below that respondent No.1 earns Rs.12000 from tailoring work and work of beautician but aforesaid

factum also never came to be proved on record.

Learned courts below having taken note of the fact that respondents have not been able to prove income of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.45,000/-

proceeded to assess the same as Rs.15,000 on guess work.

Precise grouse of the petitioner as raised in the instant petition is that since the respondents failed to lead evidence with regard to his income,

learned court below ought not have considered monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.15,000/-.

This court finds sufficient force in the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of petitioner. Once respondents had failed to prove income of the

petitioner and it stood admitted by respondents that he is a driver, learned court below while considering monthly income of the petitioner ought to have

resorted to the minimum wages payable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. As of today, driver being a skilled workman is entitled to daily wages of

Rs.270/- and as such, his monthly income ought to have been taken to be Rs.8100/-. Since 50% of amount is required for personal maintenance of the

petitioner, sum of Rs.4,000/-would be sufficient for the respondents as interim maintenance, which is otherwise payable till the disposal of main petition

under S.125 CrPC.

In view of the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are held entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and

Rs.1,000/-, respectively, which shall be payable from the date of filing of the petition and till the disposal of main petition under S.125 CrPC, pending

before learned trial Court.

Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.