Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008
Date of Decision:03.11.2009
Bani @ Kumar Gautam
.....Petitioner
Vs.
Ladi @ Seema @ Shivani
.....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. A.K. Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
****
JUDGMENT
HARBANS LAL, J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 16.12.2006
passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar
whereby he allowed the application of Ladi alias Seema awarding her
interim maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the
date of filing of the petition.
The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the
respondent is destitute having no source of her income nor she own or
possess any moveable or immovable property. Her husband has wilfully
and deliberately refused to maintain her although he is an able bodied
person and is earning Rs.12,000/- per month from the tuition work etc.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, besides
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -2-
perusing the record with due care and circumspection. This case was
adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in
appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that this matter for
hearing was also displayed on the net.
Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the
petitioner had taken a categoric stand that the marriage was solemnised on
21.2.2002 according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies, but they lived
together only for a fortnight as he came to know that his wife was suffering
from acute asthama and they are putting up separately since 8.3.2002. He
has completed his graduation only in 2003 and he is still unemployed. The
learned Court below without appreciating material brought on the record,
passed the impugned order awarding interim maintenance allowance to the
tune of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent. The same is liable to be set
aside. He further puts that the learned Court below though noticed in the
impugned order that divorce petition filed by the petitioner has been
decided vide judgment dated 9.8.2005, nonetheless, has passed the
impugned order.
I am unable to persuade myself to agree with these
submissions. Section 125(1)(d), second proviso as well as sub-section (4)
read as under:-
“[Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the
pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for
the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to
make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his
wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -3-proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to
pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to
time direct.
Provided also that an application for the monthly
allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses for
proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be
disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of
notice of the application to such person.]
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for
the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this
section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient
reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are
living separately by mutual consent.”
The petitioner has earned the ex-parte divorce decree dated
9.8.2005 (Annexure P.1) on the ground that his wife- respondent was
asthmatic, which she had concealed before marriage and was unable to
have sexual intercourse with him. Firstly, she has been condemned unheard.
Secondly, these grounds do not figure in Section 125(4) ibid. As alleged,
the petitioner is earning Rs.12,000/- per month, though there is nothing on
the record to show that the respondent has wherewithals to make her both
ends meet. To crown it all, the amount of interim maintenance allowance
fixed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is reasonable on its face. As per the
amended law, even after divorce, the wife is entitled to get maintenance
allowance from her husband till she remarries. In these premises, it is found
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2008 -4-
that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Sequelly, this
petition is dismissed.
November 03, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No