IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:09.07.2025 Manish Kumar ......Petitioner versus Rajni and another ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate for the respondents.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby an interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month has been granted to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- per month has been granted to respondent No.2-minor daughter of the age of 8 years.

2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner had restricted his claim only to the extent of interim maintenance as directed to be paid to respondent No.1-wife and not to respondent No.2. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn his claim regarding respondent No.2-minor daughter in the present petition and has pressed only regarding respondent No.1-wife.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that challenge in the present revision petition is to the impugned order whereby interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month has been granted to respondent No.1-wife and respondent No.2-minor daughter of the age of 8 years i.e. Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month for respondent No.2. He submitted that respondent No.1-wife was working as a school teacher in a private school and her salary was about Rs.11,000/- per month. However, before filing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she left the job, and therefore, she is not entitled to the grant of interim maintenance. He further submitted that insofar as the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1-wife is concerned, the same is not in dispute because respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and respondent No. 2 was born out of wedlock. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid factual aspects. He also submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner and the respondents are living separately, and that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 18.11.2013. He also asserted that it is also not in dispute that respondent No.2- minor daughter of the age of 8 years is in the care and custody of respondent No.1- wife. He, however, submitted that insofar as respondent No.2-minor daughter is concerned, he is liable to maintain her, but insofar as respondent No. 1-wife is concerned, because of the aforesaid reason that prior to filing the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., she was working as a school teacher and earning about Rs.11,000/- per month, she is not entitled to the grant of interim maintenance.

Therefore, the impugned order qua respondent No. 1-wife, may be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that as far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-wife was working as a school teacher prior to filing of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the same is being projected as if respondent No. 1 (wife) of her own volition has relinquished the job, whereas in fact the factual position was that she was turned out of the house. She had to look after her 8 years old minor daughter and it was because of the conduct of the petitioner that she had to leave her job, apart from the fact that she was suffering from physical disability regarding climbing of stairs and the school management, which is a private school, did not permit her to continue with the job. He also submitted that all the aforesaid aspects can only be determined at the time of final adjudication of the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. after adducing evidence but in the present petition, the petitioner has only assailed t