Ramesh Kumari and Others vs Kulwant Singh

A.S. Nehra, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-1-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, by which the order dated 29-7-1992 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, was modified.

Suit. Ramesh Kumari petitioner, wife of Dr. Kulwant Singh respondent, filed au application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that she was married with Dr. Kulwant Singh on 14-7-85 as per Hindu rites; that she gave birth to the minor children, namely, Amandeep Singh and Zimi, from the loins of the respondent; that circumstances had arisen by virtue of which she had to live separately from her husband and that the children are in her custody. She claimed maintenance on behalf of the children.

The prayer for interim maintenance was allowed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, on 29-7-1992 and the minor children were granted Rs. 400/- per month each as maintenance allowance from the date of the application, i.e. 10.3.1992, On revision, the amount of interim maintenance *was reduced to Rs. 250/- per month for each minor child from the date of the application.

Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, has erred in reducing the maintenance granted to the minor children of Ramesh Kumari petitioner, from Rs. 400/- per month each to Rs. 250/- per month each and that the pay of the respondent is Rs. 5,900/- per month and not Rs. 3,900/-per month as mentioned in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent, has contended that Ramesh Kumari petitioner is drawing a salary of Rs. 3100/- per month that she is in Government service and that she is also liable to maintain her children.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the minor children are to be maintained by both the parties, i.e., the husband and the wife, as per their status. Ramesh Kumari petitioner cannot ward off her liability to maintain her children. She is duty-bound to maintain her children. Therefore, there is no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 5.1.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

In view of the above-mentioned discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.