CRR(F) No. 549 of 2018 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR(F) No. 549 of 2018 (O&M) Date of decision : October 29, 2018

Sudharshan ....Petitioner

versus

Dikshu and others ....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

Present : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner

Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral)

This is a revision by disgruntled husband Sudharshan whereby he has laid challenge to the impugned orders dated 7.8.2018 by virtue of which the court of learned District Judge, Family Court, Rohtak had granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs 2000/- per month to then applicants Dikshu (major) daughter, Himanshu son, Himanshi daughter and Prashant son, all minors in their application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is not displaced that out of marriage that took place on 30.5.1996 between Mukesh and the present petitioner, these children have been born. It is the allegation of the applicant-children that the father has refused and neglected to maintain them. The stand of the petitioner's counsel Mr.

CRR(F) No. 549 of 2018 (O&M) -2-

Abhimanyu Singh that there is no documentary evidence proved to show the employment of the petitioner as a Pandit for running any Jagran party or as to his earnings and claimed that he has no source of income. As is reflected from the records, the children have a sad plight as their mother has secured a divorce and remarried and thus tinny-tots have been left at the mercy of the Almighty fending for themselves. The father in such a circumstance should have shown large heartedness in supporting the children and maintaining them and rather has again made them to have another recourse to refuge of law before this Court. Being father it is his obligation to maintain the children and above all being able bodied young person cannot wriggle out of such an obligation. This Court is rather of the view that the interim maintenance so granted keeping in view the astronomical prices of living and other necessities of life is too meager an amount. Counsel for the petitioner could not convince this Court how the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. The petition is hopelessly without merit and stands dismissed in limine.

October 29, 2018 Judge 'tiwana'

( Fateh Deep Singh )

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No Whether Reportable ? Yes/No

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2018.11.29 13:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.