IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-276-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.02.2025 BALWANT KUMAR ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS MAMTA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Dr. Payel Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

CRM-8166-2025 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 67 days in filing the present revision petition, is hereby condoned.

CRR(F)-276-2025

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, vide which maintenance has been granted to the respondents.

2. The petitioner is the husband, whereas respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the minor son of the age of 9 years as so stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner was a labour contractor and was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- Rs.6,000/- per month only, although it was so alleged by respondent No.1-wife that he was earning about Rs.50,000/- per month being a labour contractor but there was nothing on the record to show the same. She further submitted that the petitioner-husband and respondent No.1-wife have been living separately from the year 2015 and on the basis of the evasive and bald averments made by the respondents in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana vide aforesaid impugned judgment has allowed the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., vide which maintenance to the tune of Rs.6,000/- per month has been fixed for respondent No.1-wife and Rs.4,000/- per month has been fixed for respondent No.2-minor son of the age of 9 years. She further submitted that the petitioner-husband is unable to pay the aforesaid amount of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month (Rs.6,000/-+Rs.4,000/-) because his own income is about Rs.5,000/-Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside or in the alternative, the aforesaid maintenance amount may be reduced to half.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that although the petitioner has not adduced evidence or filed any affidavit showing his income before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana but now alongwith the present petition, an affidavit has been attached as Annexure P-2 to show that he has an income of Rs.5,000/-Rs.6,000/- per month.

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

6. It is a case where respondent No.1-wife and her minor son of the age of 9 years had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana for grant of maintenance. The petitioner, who is the husband chose not to appear before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana and was proceeded ex parte. When the evidence of respondent No.1-wife started, then as per the impugned judgment, the petitioner appeared before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana and he was allowed to join the proceedings, subject to the condition that he will pay the entire amount due till date, within a period of two months and shall also file his reply and income affidavit, within a period of two months. Thereafter, the petitioner-husband did not file any reply or income affidavit.

7. When the wife, who is respondent No.1 led ex parte evidence, she had stated that there is a minor son of the age of 9 years, who is in her care and custody and rather a girl child was also born thereafter, who unfortunately died because of lack of care by the petitioner-husband. It was the case of respondent No.1-wife that the income of the petitioner-husband was Rs.50,000/- per month be