AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ujagar Singh, J.
This petition is for transfer of case No. 384, dated 21.11.1984/1.12.1984 (Original application No. 24/20.2.1984 decided on 8.10 1984) now pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Fazilka, to any otherCourt having jurisdiction.
Notice of this petition was given to respondent No. 1 as she was also representing her minor son.
The grouse giving rise to this petition is that exparte proceedings were taken up against the present petitioner on 7 5.1984 and the exparte order was passed on 8. 10. 1984 fixing the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 500/ payable to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 200/ p. m payable to Master Harpreet Singh respondent No. 2 w.e.f. the date of the application i.e. 20.2.1984. For setting aside the exparte proceedings as also the exparte order the petitioner moved an application but the trial Court vide its order dated 5.12.1985 made a conditional order requiring the petitioner to deposit arrears of maintenance relating to respondent No. 1 in the Court and on this condition the execution proceedings qua respondent No. 1 were to be stayed. It was further added that this amount was not to be released till the decision of the application for setting aside the exparte proceedings.
The petitioner went in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was no illegality or irregularity in the said order but keeping in view the circumstances of this case the revisional court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/p. m. to respondents 1 and 2 as interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure w. e. f. 1.12.1985. This amount was directed to be adjusted against the final order. Parties were, therefore, directed to appear in the lower Court on 2.2.1987.
Instead of going into the merits of the transfer application as also into the facts on the basis of which exparte proceedings were sought to be set aside, I asked the counsel for both the parties to settle the matter in this Court finally. Both the counsel agreed to argue the matter in this Court and I have heard the arguments of both the parties today.
The trial Court vide order dated 8.10.1984 came to a finding that the present petitioner was running transport business under the name and style of Uttam Roadways Private Ltd., Bangalore, as was inferred from his letter dated 21.3.1984 and on that basis the trial Court found that the income of the petitioner, however low it be taken, cannot be treated as less than Rs. 2000/ p. m. and on that basis the amount of maintenance was fixed. The income of the petitioner as stated by respondent No. 1 was Rs. 40,000/ p. m.
After hearing the counsel, the income of the petitioner can be safely assessed to be at least Rs. 1600/ to which counsel for the respondent had no serious objection. Out of this amount almost onethird is to be awarded to the respondent. In this situation, I fix the maintenance of respondent No. 1 at Rs. 400/ p. m. and to respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 150/ p.m. The total of this amount comes to Rs. 550/ p.m. which is almost about one third of the said amount. This amount will be payable from the date of the main application i.e. 20.2.1984 The amount of Rs. 10,000/ has already been paid in this Court towards the arrears of maintenance. The remaining amount is directed to be paid within three months. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the above modification in the orders of the Court below.