CRR(F)-702 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 112 Rajan Bedi Neha Bedi CORAM: Present:- KIRTI SINGH 1. 25.02.2025 in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs. respondent 2. petitioner and matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned maintenance Aggrieved by the same, the present petition. 702-2025(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F) Date of Decision: Rajan Bedi Versus Neha Bedi HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise ***** KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred against 25.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent-wife. The brief facts of the case are tha petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. The learned Family Court vide order dated maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month in favour of Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-702-2025(O&M) Date of Decision: 12.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred against order dated passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby ad-interim per month was awarded in favour of the The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the was solemnised on 09.11.2020. A matrimonial dispute ensued between the couple and the respondent filed a for seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. Court vide order dated 25.02.2025 granted interim per month in favour of the respondent. the petitioner has approached this Court by filing ...Petitioner(s) (s) order dated , interim per month was awarded in favour of the marriage between the A respondent filed a seeking maintenance. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the claim made by the respondent. interim respondent. the petitioner has approached this Court by filing KAPIL 2025.05.12 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-702 3. learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed the interim and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner tried his best to maintain petitioner without any just cause. qualified lady who month whereas the petitioner is working as Salesman in OPP a modest income the IP address written on being his annual income of the salary certificate (Annexure P is shown tune of Rs.1,68,610/ as Rs.2,50,135/ substantiate his averments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Annexpure 4. perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. T petition is decided respondent 5. 702-2025(O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed interim maintenance to the respondent w and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner tried his best to maintain the respondent but she left the company of the petitioner without any just cause. The respondent is an educated and qualified lady who is engaged in tuition work and earning Rs.30,000/ month whereas the petitioner is working as Salesman in OPP income. He further submits that learned Family Court address written on ITR of the petitioner being his annual income of Rs.2,50,135/- the salary certificate (Annexure P-7), the monthly income of the petitioner to be Rs.13,120/- and his ITR tune of Rs.1,68,610/- but the learned Family Court has misread this figure Rs.2,50,135/- which was the IP address mentioned under the ITR. To substantiate his averments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Annexpure P-7 and P-8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. T petition is decided in limine in order to save li respondent and also to save the judicial time of the Court. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned - 2- Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed maintenance to the respondent which is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner respondent but she left the company of the The respondent is an educated and tuition work and earning Rs.30,000/- per month whereas the petitioner is working as Salesman in OPP and earning He further submits that learned Family Court misread of the petitioner for the year 2024-25 as -. It is further stated that as per , the monthly income of the petitioner shows his annual income to the but the learned Family Court has misread this figure which was the IP address mentioned under the ITR. To substantiate his averments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The present in order to save litigation cost of the and also to save the judicial time of the Court. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned contends that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshiarpur has wrongly allowed hich is on a very higher side and it has been passed totally on the basis of wrong facts. The petitioner respondent but she left the company of the The respondent is an educated and per earning misread as . It is further stated that as per , the monthly income of the petitioner annual income to the but the learned Family Court has misread this figure which was the IP address mentioned under the ITR. To substantiate his averments, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after in the he present tigation cost of the A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned KAPIL 2025.05.12 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-702 Family Court reveals that the Court erroneously considered the IP address, i.e., 2.50.134.72, the annual income of the petitioner, instead of taking into account his actual disclosed income of Rs. maintenance was awarded. The order dated 25.02.2025 is, therefore, remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is clarified that u maintenance, the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance as directed vide order dated 25.02.2025. 6. 7. disposed of. 12.05.2025 Kapil Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 702-2025(O&M) Family Court reveals that the Court erroneously considered the IP address, i.e., 2.50.134.72, mentioned in the Income Tax Return (ITR), as the annual income of the petitioner, instead of taking into account his actual disclosed income of Rs.1,68,610/- maintenance was awarded. The order dated 25.02.2025 is, therefore, remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is clarified that until a fresh determination is made regarding interim maintenance, the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance as directed order dated 25.02.2025. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of. 12.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable - 3- Family Court reveals that the Court erroneously considered the IP mentioned in the Income Tax Return (ITR), as the annual income of the petitioner, instead of taking into account his - and consequently, ad interim maintenance was awarded. The order dated 25.02.2025 is, therefore, remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is ntil a fresh determination is made regarding interim maintenance, the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance as directed The petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Family Court reveals that the Court erroneously considered the IP mentioned in the Income Tax Return (ITR), as the annual income of the petitioner, instead of taking into account his onsequently, ad interim maintenance was awarded. The order dated 25.02.2025 is, therefore, remanded to the learned Family Court for a fresh decision in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is ntil a fresh determination is made regarding interim maintenance, the petitioner shall continue to pay maintenance as directed stand(s) KAPIL 2025.05.12 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document