I am of the
considered opinion that the maintenance assessed by the trial Court is liable
to be enhanced. The prices of daily necessities are increasing day by day.
The petitioner and the minor child are entitled to enjoy the same amenities
of life as they would have, had they been staying with the respondent. The
age of the child is 14 years. The mother has to provide for his education,
upkeep and maintenance so that he does not suffer in his development
owing to paucity of funds nor he develops any complex in his peer group.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances,
the maintenance awarded to the petitioner by the trial court, affirmed in
revision, is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-412 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: August 27, 2013
Moumita Khan
---Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Citation;2014(2)crimes 356 P&H
Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-8 is taken on record.
The present petition lays challenge to orders dated 10.9.2009
and 2.12.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and
the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, respectively, whereby the
petitioner has been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per
month and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge declined the prayer to
enhance the amount.
The facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that
the petitioner was married with respondent No. 2 on 19.4.1998 and a male
child was born out of this wedlock on 7.8.1999. The respondent is an
Engineer working in NHPC Limited. The respondent-husband has failed
to discharge his liability to provide maintenance to the petitioner and the
minor child living with her. In the year 2004, the respondent purchased
two bed rooms flat bearing No. 501-A, Aravali Heights, Sector 21-C Part-
III, Faridabad, in which the petitioner is residing with her son.
The petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
was allowed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the
petitioner was awarded a monthly sum of Rs. 15,000/- for herself and minor
son of the parties. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner for
enhancement of the amount to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was dismissed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
To express her grievance that the amount awarded in her
favour is inadequate, the present petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-husband
is drawing salary more than Rs. 60,000/- per month, as per copy of salary
ledger for the financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11 (Annexure P-8). It is
argued that from August 2010 onwards, his salary has increased
substantially which varies from Rs, 70,000/- to 90,000/-.
It is further
submitted that keeping in view emoluments of the respondent, the trial
Court has
not awarded maintenance according to entitlement and the
revisional Court failed to correctly and properly appreciate the income of
the respondent and the amount required by the petitioner, in view of sky
rocketing prices of daily necessities of life, the status which the petitioner is
entitled to enjoy and the amount required to provide proper upkeep,
maintenance and education to the child whose meeds are increasing as he is
a teenager.
Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, argues that the trial
Court has awarded maintenance, taking into consideration salary of the
respondent at the rate of Rs. 60,000/-. It is submitted that the respondent
has a liability to pay EMI in regard to the flat in which the petitioner, is
residing at Faridabad. According to counsel, statutory deductions towards
income tax etc., are made from his salary, therefore, there is no error or
illegality in the orders impugned.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The sole question for consideration is ‘whether the maintenance
awarded by the Judicial Magistrate is liable to be enhanced?’
The petitioner has been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.
15,000/- per month for herself and the minor son. She is staying in the
residential accommodation provided by her husband. The petitioner has
prayed for enhancement to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per month.
The petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-8, a document
in regard to salary of the respondent-husband from April 2009 to March
2011. Counsel for the respondent has not filed any counter to challenge
correctness of the document. A perusal of Annexure P-8 reveals that salary
of the respondent-husband has increased substantially from August 2010
onwards. His salary is Rs. 71,773 in August 2010. In the document, there
is no reference to any deductions. On the contrary, in certain months, the
respondent has been paid huge arrears. In the month of December 2010, a
total sum of Rs 4,14,051/- has been paid to the respondent including arrears,
raising an inference that his salary was refixed at higher rate retrospectively.
The respondent has no other liability except to maintain his family
consisting of his wife and minor child. He is paying instalments to the tune
of Rs. 10,000/- per month in regard to
purchasing a flat.
re-payment of loan raised for
Taking into account the liability of the respondent to
pay Rs. 10,000/- towards EMI of the flat, however, keeping in view the
salary of the respondent which is further increasing
from April 2009
onwards and has been raised to Rs. 99,057/- in January 2011, I am of the
considered opinion that the maintenance assessed by the trial Court is liable
to be enhanced. The prices of daily necessities are increasing day by day.
The petitioner and the minor child are entitled to enjoy the same amenities
of life as they would have, had they been staying with the respondent. The
age of the child is 14 years. The mother has to provide for his education,
upkeep and maintenance so that he does not suffer in his development
owing to paucity of funds nor he develops any complex in his peer group.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances,
the maintenance awarded to the petitioner by the trial court, affirmed in
revision, is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.
Disposed of accordingly.
(REKHA MITTAL)
JUDGE
August 27, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment