IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-42-2025 Date of decision: 25.02.2025 SAURABH ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS TANUJA ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Arun Chander Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent-wife.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, interim maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month has been granted to the respondent-wife. He further submitted that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner-husband, his income has been shown to be Rs.10,000/- per month but has been presumed to be Rs.15,000-Rs.16,000/- per month for the purpose of considering the application for grant of interim maintenance. He also submitted that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as interim maintenance granted to the respondent-wife is on the higher side especially in view of the fact that the petitioner also has other expenses to make and therefore, the aforesaid impugned order may be set aside or in the alternative, the aforesaid amount of interim maintenance may be reduced.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. It is a case where the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance alongwith an application for grant of interim maintenance. The learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri has granted interim maintenance to the respondent- wife to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri would show that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner-husband, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and so far as the respondent-wife is concerned, she was not earning anything and there was nothing on the record to show that she was working anywhere or earning anything. Interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,500/- per month has only been fixed for the respondent-wife, which is almost 1/3^rd of the total income of the petitioner, as shown by him in the affidavit.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Firstly, because the present revision petition is only against the order of interim maintenance and secondly, the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as interim maintenance cannot be considered to be excessive by any stretch of imagination. Once it has come on the record that respondent-wife was not earning anything, then it was not only a statutory but also moral responsibility of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as interim maintenance, even if assumingly earning of the petitioner is taken to be Rs.10,000/- per month, cannot be said to be on the higher side. Therefore, on the quantum of interim maintenance as well, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri.

6. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)

25.02.2025 JUDGE

Chetan Thakur