Roshan Singh vs Gurpreet Kaur

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 04.05.2010 (Annexure-P/8) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

While issuing notice of motion, this Court passed the following order on 14.07.2010:

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a Drawing Teacher, drawing Rs.18,000/-per month as a salary and is looking after his three sons namely, Bimal Vir Singh, Kamal Vir Singh and Anmol Vir Singh. It is submitted that his first son Bimal Vir Singh is running a Studio and the rent of the shop is Rs.2,000/-which is being paid by the petitioner. It is further submitted that his second son namely Kamal Vir Singh is a student of First Year Diploma in Mechanical Engineering at Baba Ishar Polytechnic College, Kot Isse Khan, Moga and the expenses of his education are also borne by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that third son Anmol Vir Singh is a student of 10th class and his tuition fee and other expenses are also incurred by the petitioner.

Learned counsel has submitted that the wife of petitioner is residing in her matrimonial home, which was built up by him after taking a loan from the bank and is paying an installment of Rs.6,225/-per month. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the expenses, which the petitioner has to incur on the education of the children and maintenance of the house, ad interim maintenance of Rs.4,500/- per month is excessive.

Issue notice of mo0tion for 16.08.2010.

Till the next date of hearing ad interim maintenance shall be restricted to Rs.2,000/-per month only.

However, even the ad interim maintenance @ Rs.2,000/-per month has not been paid by the petitioner to the respondent as per aforementioned order. Vide subsequent order dated 11.05.2011, the following order was passed:

Affidavit of the respondent-wife Gurpreet Kaur has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. Copy of the same has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner-husband.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife states that a sum of Rs.36,000/-payable till May 2011 remains to be paid towards maintenance as awarded u/s 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 7.4.2007 whereas except for one payment of Rs.2,000/-, the maintenance pendent elite awarded u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide impugned order dated 4.5.2010 payable w.e.f. 5.3.2009 also remains outstanding. He further submits that even if the amount is calculated at the reduced rate of Rs.2,000/-, the outstanding amount comes to around Rs.80,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband seeks a short adjournment to pay the aforesaid outstanding amount subject to final adjustments and without prejudice to his rights in the instant revision petition.

List on 2.6.2011.

Hence, in view of afore-mentioned order, present petitioner was to pay outstanding amount which was around Rs.80,000/-as on that day. However, on the next date of hearing i.e. 2.6.2011 only Rs.15,000/-were paid and another date was requested for clearing the arrears. On 14.09.2011 only Rs.10,000/-were paid and another date was requested, however, it was made clear that in case the arrears would not be cleared on the next date, the present revision petition would liable to be dismissed. However, on 19.10.2011 only Rs.20,000/-were paid and another date was requested for clearing all the arrears. Adjournment was granted again with the clear direction to the petitioner that if he would fail to clear all the arrears of maintenance by the next date of hearing, the present revision petition would liable to be dismissed .

Today as well he is seeking another adjournment on the plea that he has not received salary for this month. However, the plea cannot be accepted. The petitioner has failed to comply with the order of this Court. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief in this revision petition.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.