IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Reserved on 09.09.2025 Pronounced on 16.09.2025 RULDA SINGH …Petitioner V/S PARAMJIT KAUR …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Digvijay Singh Nehra, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

CRM-34403-2023 Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed for condonation of delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition.

Allowed. The delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

CRR(F)-1192-2023

1. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent claiming maintenance allowance @ Rs.50,000/- per month. Vide order dated 10.03.2023, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana (Camp at Khanna) awarded interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife. It is this order which is impugned in the revision petition.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred to as husband and wife.

3. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the quantum of maintenance assessed by learned Family Court was on much higher side and learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, failed to take into account that husband had the liability of maintaining his aged father, grown up son and daughter. It was argued that both children of the husband were studying in school and were in his care and custody. husband was a poor farmer with no sufficient income while the wife was earning from stitching work. It is thus prayed that the interim maintenance allowance awarded to the wife be reduced.

4. Learned counsel for the wife, on the other hand, submits that husband was financially well off. He had agricultural land at various places. In his affidavit of income, assets and liabilities, he neither disclosed the details of the land nor appended his statements of account. Thus, husband was not coming forward with his actual income and learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, rightly assessed the maintenance @

Rs.10,000/- per month.

5. Brief facts of the case, relevant for disposal of the petition are that the wife sought maintenance allowance from the husband alleging that the parties were married in 2003 as per Sikh rites and rituals at Village Jhungian, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. Out of the wedlock, two children, a son and a daughter were born. After few months of marriage, the wife was ill-treated and tortured by the husband and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. The husband had illicit relations with another lady and he treated the wife with cruelty. The wife was finally turned out of the matrimonial home. She lodged an FIR against the husband and his family members in Police Station Sadar Thana but no action was taken. The husband refused to maintain her. He had agricultural land and other properties and was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month whereas the wife had no source of income.

6. The husband contested the petition denying the allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry. He claimed that both children were in his care & custody and the wife who was of aggressive nature, always insulted and misbehaved with him and his family members. She wanted the husband to separate from his father and get his share of property. The daughter was studying in Class X in Satluj Public School, Panchkula and son was studying in Class XI in Mount Carmel, Chandigarh. The husband claimed that he was only earning Rs.30,000/- from his agricultural land and was also supporting his old father who was 65 years of age. The wife was able bodied and was earning more than Rs.20,000/- from stitching etc. She was herself guilty of deserting the husband.

7. The only dispute raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding the quantum of interim allowance. Assessment of interim maintenance for the wife has to be made on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the affidavits of disclosure. In s