IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 879 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7503 of 2008]
[Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7503 of 2008]
BHUSHAN KUMAR MEEN .. Appellant(s)
Versus
MANSI MEEN @ HARPREET KAUR ... Respondent(s)
WITH SLP(Crl.)No.7924 of 2008
ORDER
Leave is granted in SLP(C) No.7503 of 2008.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1 st July,
2008, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Crl.Misc.No.14793-M of 2008,
whereby the appellant's application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for quashing the orders dated 25th July, 2007 and 6th November, 2007
passed by the courts below granting Rs.10,000/- per month, as interim maintenance to
the respondent-wife, was dismissed.
Taking into consideration the evidence adduced, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, before whom the proceedings under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the respondent-wife is pending, directed the
appellant-husband to pay the said sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of interim maintenance
to the respondent-wife during the pendency of the proceeding. The said order was
affirmed both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court.
Before us, the appellant-husband, who is appearing in person, has shown that
his salary certificate had been produced before the Magistrate, from which it appears
that he was drawing approximately Rs.34,900/- per month towards his salary, out of
which various deductions were being made, including a deduction of Rs.21,329/-
towards the home loan which he had obtained, leaving in his hand as takeaway salary
a sum of about Rs.9000/-.
The appellant has submitted that in that view of the matter, the amount as
awarded by the Magistrate to the respondent-wife was not justifiable.
The appellant-husband has also taken another point regarding the
maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of the ability
of the respondent-wife to maintain herself.
On behalf of the respondent-wife, it has been urged that having regard to the
net salary, which the appellant is entitled to take home, the amount as assessed by way
of interim maintenance by the Magistrate and as upheld by the Sessions Judge as well
as the High Court, could not be said to be excessive and that the fact that the appellant
had taken the home loan which has been adjusted against the salary, is no
consideration for altering the said amount, as had been granted by the learned
Sessions Judge.
As far as the second point taken by the appellant is concerned, it was submitted
that the same required evidence and had to be to ultimately decided by the Magistrate
while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and considering the
reality of the situation to the effect that the appellant is receiving a sum of about
Rs.9000/- in hand after deduction of various amounts, including the instalments
towards repayment of the home loan, we are of the view that the amount as awarded
by way of interim maintenance is on the high side. At the same time, we cannot also
shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least
there is nothing on record to indicate she is employed in any gainful work. However,
having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought
not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.
Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the learned Magistrate, granting
Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent-wife by way of interim maintenance and
direct that the appellant-husband shall pay to the respondent-wife a sum of Rs.5000/-
per month, instead of Rs.10,000/-, and all other terms and conditions, as indicated by
the learned Magistrate, will continue to operate.
We are informed that there are huge arrears, which are yet to be paid by the
appellant-husband to the respondent-wife. The learned Magistrate shall recalculate
the amount of arrears on the basis of the order passed today and the appellant-
husband shall within three months of the re-assessment of the amount, pay the sum to
the respondent-wife, if necessary, in three installments, to be decided by the learned
Magistrate.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the question as to what would be
the amount payable by way of maintenance per month to the respondent-wife and this
is only an interim arrangement till the matter is finally disposed of by the learned
Magistrate. We also keep open the second question raised by the husband-wife
regarding the applicability of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as far as the respondent-wife is
concerned.
Since the matter has been pending for a long time and evidence has been
recorded to some extent, we direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of the pending
proceedings within six months from the date of communication of this order.
The other Special Leave Petition, being No.7924 of 2008, be delinked from the
appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.7503 of 2008, being disposed of by this order, and be
listed separately for final disposal after the summer vacation.
The order of attachment of the salary of the appellant, which had been stayed
in these proceedings, shall continue till the final disposal of the matter by the learned
Magistrate. In the event, the appellant defaults in making the payment in terms of this
order, the Magistrate will be at liberty to re-impose the order of attachment.
...................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
...................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi,
April 28, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment