Poonam vs Ramesh Kumar

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition.

In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sirsa, Camp Court at Ellenabad, vide which, in an application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was awarded to be paid to the petitioner.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.11.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals. However, matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/-per month. The respondent filed a reply and contested the claim made by the petitioner. Learned Family Court, vide order dated 12.03.2024, granted interim maintenance allowance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court for enhancement of the amount of maintenance, by filing the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, INTER ALIA, contends that interim maintenance assessed by learned family Court is not in consonance with admitted salary of the respondent and very meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month has been awarded to the petitioner, which is not sufficient to sustain her. The respondent is earning more than Rs.1.00 lac per month and is also owner of some agricultural land, whereas the petitioner has no source of income and she is on the verge of destitution and as such, Rs.30,000/- per month as maintenance should be awarded to her.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that learned Family Court has decided the application for interim maintenance by relying upon the facts of some other case. A perusal of para No.2 of the impugned order would indicate that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 18.06.2018, whereas marriage between them was performed on 23.11.2019, as discernible from para No.2 of the application filed by the petitioner. Perusal of para No.2 of reply filed by the respondent to the application for interim maintenance indicates that he is employed as Head Constable in Delhi Police and is drawing the salary of Rs.59,000/- per month, whereas in para No.5 of the impugned order dated 12.03.2024, while deciding the application for interim maintenance, learned Family Court has recorded that admittedly, the respondent is earning Rs.14,000/- per month by doing the job in a company, which is factually incorrect.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case with his able assistance.

From perusal of the record, it appears that while deciding the application for interim maintenance, learned Family Court has relied upon the facts of some other case.

Without commenting further on the issue at hand, present petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Family Court to pass a fresh order keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case.