IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-852-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 07.07.2025 NARENDAR ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS RENU ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Ms. Mehak Sawhney, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

CRM-23288-2025 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 110 days in filing the present revision petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 110 days in filing the present revision petition, is hereby condoned.

CRR(F)-852-2025

1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh, vide which interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent-wife to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per month from the date of filing of the main petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner- husband is a Carpenter by profession and his income is only Rs.12,000/- per month even as per his affidavit which he had filed while declaring his assets and liabilities in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh versus Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, regarding which there is no dispute. She further submitted that so far as the factum of marriage between the petitioner and respondent is concerned, the same is also not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that two children were born out of the said wedlock, who are admittedly in the care and custody of the petitioner-husband. She further submitted that however the respondent-wife had earlier separated from the petitioner-husband but as of today, she is living with him under the same roof and therefore, the aforesaid amount of interim maintenance which has been granted to the respondent-wife is liable to be set aside. She also submitted that the petitioner-husband has limited source of income and since he earns only Rs.12,000/- per month, he will not be able to pay the aforesaid amount of interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and therefore, on this ground as well the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

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

4. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that two children were born out of the said wedlock, who are in the care and custody of the petitioner-husband. So far as the income of the petitioner-husband is concerned, as per his affidavit which he had filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh declaring his assets and liabilities and which has also been attached along with the present petition as Annexure P-4, he has stated that he is a Carpenter and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In other words, the petitioner- husband is a skilled person engaged in the occupation of a Carpenter. A perusal of the aforesaid impugned order vide which only interim maintenance was granted to the respondent would show that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh considered the aspect of income of the petitioner-husband, which although was shown to be Rs.12,000/- per month by the petitioner-husband but he being a skilled person and also an able-bodied man, it was so observed that in today’s scenario, a skilled labourer manages to earn somewhere between Rs.20,000/- to Rs.24,000/- per month even by applying the DC rates and therefore, the aforesaid income which was shown to be Rs.12,000/- per month is on the lower side. This aspect that the petitioner- husband in an able-bodied man and has a capacity to earn more was also considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhajjar, Camp Court, Bahadurgarh while considering the fixation of quantum of interim maintenance for the respondent-wife.

5. So far as the respondent-wife is concerned, she is