IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-21009-2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 30.03.2026 Laxmi Kant ...... Petitioner V/S Savita ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for respondent.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner/husband – Laxmi Kant has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal vide which maintenance was granted in favour of wife-Savita to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month, in favour of son to the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month, total Rs.15,000/- per month along with litigation expenses granted to the tune of Rs.11,000/-, for the quashing of order dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palwal, in Criminal Revision vide which maintenance granted in favour of the son was set aside and rest of the order was upheld as detailed therein and for quashing of order dated 12.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) vide which application for producing additional evidence as well as asking for DNA test of son has been declined by learned Sessions Judge, Palwal or any other direction which the Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that marriage of petitioner-husband with Savita-respondent was performed in the year 1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The Gouna ceremony was performed in the year 2001. Thereafter, she started living in the matrimonial home as his wife. One male child, Prashant Sharma was born in the year 2004. In the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it was alleged that petitioner (respondent in the main case) withdrew from her company. Since she was having no source of income, she filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was alleged that he was earning Rs.60,000/- per month by doing the business of jewellery at Jaipur and was having income from agricultural land situated in village Nagaria-Guhata. With these facts, petition was filed which was duly contested by the present petitioner-husband by filing reply (Annexure P-4). It was specifically alleged that the wife had suppressed true facts from the court. He was working in a private factory earning Rs.2,500/- per month. The respondent was working in Anganwadi as well as in SKD Public School, Kosi Kalan. She obtained divorce from the present petitioner and remarried with Madan Mohan, elder brother of the petitioner. Without considering the aforesaid factual position and the income of present petitioner, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-1), vide which maintenance was granted to Savita as wife, Prashant Sharma as son along with litigation expenses as detailed therein. This order was challenged by filing criminal revision in which the aforesaid order was modified. Despite facts narrated by the petitioner qua Savita regarding her conduct as well as her financial status, she was still granted maintenance whereas the maintenance qua Prashant Sharma was set aside. Said Prashant Sharma was not born out of the loins of present petitioner. In fact, he was born out of the loins of his elder brother. Regarding this fact, application was filed seeking permission to lead additional evidence in criminal revision (Annexure P-3). Without considering the allegations, said application was wrongly declined by learned Sessions Judge, Palwal vide order dated

12.05.2015 (Annexure P-5).

It is argued that the respondent-Savita was not entitled to maintenance on two grounds. Firstly, she obtained divorce from the petitioner by filing petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act bearing No.93 of 2006, which was decreed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Mathura dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure P-6/T). Her statement in that cas