JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J. 

CM-1181-CI-2024

1. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the computation sheet annexed with the application is taken on record as Annexure A-17, contents whereof, are extracted hereinafter.

Payments made so far under HAMA :

CM-1213-CI-2024

2. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the objections to the computation sheet (Annexure A-17) are taken on record.

RFA-100-2023 (O&M)

3. Through the instant appeal, the appellant herein, lays a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022, as became passed by the Court of the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala, wherebys, the learned Family Court, Patiala, thus decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The said suit became cast under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (hereinafter refer to as the HAMA). Through the verdict (supra), the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala, declared the respondent/plaintiff to become entitled to maintenance @ Rs. 30,000/- per month from the date of filing the suit till March 2016 i.e. till the minor had completed his 5th class, @ Rs. 50,000/- per month from April 2016 till March 2021, for the time the plaintiff had completed his 5th Class till 10th Class and @ Rs.70,000/- per month from April 2021, till the respondent/plaintiff completes his graduation/professional course.

Factual Backdrop of the case.

4. The appellant-father married the mother-Manveen Kaur of the respondent at Chandigarh on 27.05.2004. On 23.07.2005, the respondent-son was born out of the wedlock. The respondent is the only child born out of the wedlock of the present appellant and the respondent. Since October, 2011, Manveer Kaur and respondent-son resided together in the matrimonial house, whereas, the appellant and his father started living separately. On 08.02.2012, a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short called as the DV Act), became instituted by Manveen Kaur. The respondent/son was not a party in the said petition. In the proceedings under the DV Act, on an interim relief application filed by Manveen Kaur, the learned JMIC vide order dated 15.11.2012 (Annexure A-2), held respondent No.l-appellant herein liable to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of his wife and his minor son, thus from the date of filing of the application besides the appellant was restrained from dispossessing them from the shared house. Both Manveen Kaur as well as respondent No. 1-appellant herein filed their respective appeal(s) against the order passed by the learned JMIC in the complaint filed under the DV Act. Both the appeals became dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Manveen Kaur filed CRM-M No.34224 of 2013 before this Court, thus challenging the order of interim maintenance (supra). The above petition became allowed vide order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure A-6) and the amount of interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month. Both the appellant as well as Manveen Kaur filed SLPs before the Apex Court wherebys became challenged the order dated 17.07.2015, but both the SLPs became dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the sum of Rs.50,000/- as became adjudged by this Court, thus is to be construed to be the clinchingly assessed interim sums towards the maintenance of the wife of the appellant.

6. The final verdict on the complaint filed under the DV Act beca