AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral)
By way of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
“i.That the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Ld. Principal Judge (Family Court), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Case No.7/2024, titled as Mrs. Parwati Devi & Anr. Vs. Sh. Lalit Kumar, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.01.2026, passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandi, in HPMA-01-000149-2024, titled as Mrs. Parwati Devi and Another Vs. Sh. Lalit Kumar, preferred by the respondents herein, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of maintenance, which petition stands disposed of by the learned Principal Judge in the following terms:
“30.The petitioners are held entitled to a total monthly maintenance of ₹7,500 (₹4,000 to Petitioner No. 1 and ₹5,500 to Petitioner No. 2), payable from the date of filing of the petition.
31.Any amount already paid by the respondent during the pendency of the petition shall be adjusted while calculating the arrears.
32.The arrears shall be deposited within three months from the date of this order. The monthly maintenance shall be paid on or before the 10th day of each succeeding month.
33.In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is also held entitled to litigation expenses, which are assessed as ₹8,000/-.”
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, as also learned counsel for the respondents, and having perused the judgment under challenge, as also the documents appended with the present proceedings, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment.
A perusal of the judgment demonstrates that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.11.2020 and out of the marriage wedlock, a son was born, who presently is about four years old and was approximately one year and ten months old at the time of filing of the petition.
The respondents herein had filed the petition seeking maintenance, inter alia, on the ground that on 12.01.2022, the wife was admitted in Medical College at Ner Chowk on account of pregnancy pain and discharged on 31.01.2022, whereafter she returned to her matrimonial house and resided there up to 12.02.2022, after which she was shifted back to the hospital for delivery. It was further her contention that after giving birth to the child, she returned to the matrimonial house, but was re-admitted in the hospital on account of complications up to 03.03.2022. As per her, during this particular period, none from the matrimonial house of the lady came to visit her and it was her parents who took care of her. It was further her contention before the learned Court below, that the family of the husband refused to bring her back to the matrimonial house, causing her mental depression, as a result thereof, she and the minor child were forced to reside with her father.
Learned Family Judge, after considering the relevant contentions of the parties before it, has been pleased to award total monthly maintenance of ₹7,500/- to the respondents herein, i.e. ₹4,000/- to the wife and ₹3,500/- to the minor child. While arriving at the said conclusion, learned Family Judge has, inter alia, held that the wife was having no source of income and as far as the husband was concerned, the income of the husband was ₹22,300/- per month, who was employed in a finance company as a Manager and this was also evident from the testimony of one PW-3, Bhupender Kumar, who happened to be an employee of the said finance company.
During the course of the hearing of this criminal revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out that the findings returned by the learned Family Judge in the judgment under challenge were either perverse or not borne out from the record. His contention that the amount was on the excessive side, as the petitioner-husband has to look after his widowed mother also to look after, does not impresses us.
We are of the considered view that in the light of the fact that it has not been disputed before us that the income of the husband is around ₹22,000/- per month, an amount of ₹7,500/- awarded to the wife and the minor son cannot be said to be excessive. In view of the fact that the wife is not an earning hand, but is at the mercy of her parents, survival on total maintenance of ₹7,500/- per month cannot be said to be a very luxurious survival, that too with a minor son, who is hardly four years old and as has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, he has recently been admitted to a school also, which obviously will also entail further expenditure.
Therefore, in the light of the above reasoning, as we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and further as we do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.