In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-5689 of 2009
Date of decision: 19.3.2009
Manoj Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
Geeta Devi
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda , Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed by Manoj Kumar under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order
dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate,
Ist Class, Palwal, whereby he was directed to pay interim
maintenance @ Rs.1,200/- per month to the respondent; and
judgment dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-2), vide which the order
dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) was upheld by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
Respondent Geeta Devi filed a petition under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) against the
present petitioner. Vide order dated 2.12.2006 (Annexure P-1),
interim maintenance @ Rs.1,200/- per month was allowed to the
Criminal Misc. No.M-5689 of 2009 -2-
respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is merely working as a barber and does not have sufficient
means even to maintain himself.
The factum of marriage of petitioner with the respondent
is not in dispute. The petitioner is working as a barber in a village. A
provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated with a
view to protect the deserted wives from starvation and vagrancy.
The provision is remedial rather than punitive. It is the duty of the
petitioner to maintain his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
failed to point out that the respondent is capable of maintaining
herself.
Hence, the impugned orders do not call for any
interference. The amount of interim maintenance allowed by the
Courts below cannot be said to be on the higher side in these days of
high prices.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
March 19, 2009
anita