202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-128-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision:- 03.03.2025 Harbans Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harmandeep Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate with Mr. Shivaly Singla, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner Harbans Singh filed criminal revision against impugned judgment dated 04.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crimes against Women), Patiala vide which appeal preferred against order dated 16.01.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala in application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been declined, upholding the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 1 Harmandeep Kaur and Rs. 10,000/- per month for minor daughter, total Rs. 15,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of application till disposal of case.

2. Brief facts of case are Harmandeep Kaur was married to Ranjit Singh on 28.08.2005 and out of this wedlock, daughter namely Jassmehar Kaur was born. Ranjit Singh husband of Harmandeep Kaur expired on 26.02.2014 in an accident and since then she is residing in a part of her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. She did not possess any movable or immovable property nor she had any source of income. Her daughter was studying in DAV Public School, Patiala. She was unable to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. Due to harassment caused to her, she filed application under Section 12 of DV Act against Harbans Singh father-in-law, Surinderpal Kaur mother-in-law, Karnail Kaur mother of Harbans Singh and Jujhar Singh, another son of Harbans Singh- petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month as he is getting pension from Army as well as getting agricultural income from agricultural land and he is also serving as Security Guard in Canara Bank and getting salary to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. Respondent No. 1 being father-in-law is legally bound to maintain them and on these facts along with complaint, application was filed for grant of interim maintenance.

3. Claim for grant of interim maintenance was opposed by respondents by denying the fact that Jassmehar Kaur was born out of the wedlock of Harmandeep Kaur and Ranjit Singh. However, it is admitted that Harmandeep Kaur along with her minor daughter is residing in same house. Respondents denied that applicant has no movable or immovable property of her own. It is alleged that she is M.A., B.Ed and posted as Teacher in a school and earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Ranjit Singh was employed in Airport at Chandigarh. Harmandeep Kaur had received all the benefits on the death of Ranjit Singh. Respondents are not legally bound to maintain applicant Harmandeep Kaur or her minor daughter. They do not have any share in the properties owned by respondents since it is their self acquired property.

4. As referred above, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala granted interim maintenance in favour of Harmandeep Kaur and her daughter by passing order dated 16.01.2019 and appeal preferred against this order is also declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala by passing detailed judgment dated 04.03.2020.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner firstly raised arguments that after the death of Ranjit Singh, respondent No. 1 Harmandeep Kaur has received all the benefits from department. All the belongings of Ranjit Singh are in the possession of Harmandeep Kaur. Therefore, present petitioner Harbans Singh (father-in-law) has no responsibility to provide maintenance to Harmandeep Kaur or her minor