Civil Revision No.4498 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4498 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 27, 2011 Sh.Inderjit Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Paramjit Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.K.Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 14.5.2011, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance pendente lite @ `3,000/- per month to respondent-wife and `1500/- per month to minor son Jagjit Singh during pendency of divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by petitioner against respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is also paying ad interim maintenance @ `1,000/- each per month to respondent-wife and the child as per order dated 26.8.2009 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Civil Revision No.4498 of 2011(O&M) -2- (hereinafter to be referred as `Cr.P.C.') and, however, learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, has not ordered for adjusting the said amount despite the fact that it has been so held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007(4) PLR 10, on which reliance has been placed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, while passing the impugned order. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, in view of these facts, impugned order is modified to the extent that if any amount has been paid by petitioner as maintenance to the respondent-wife in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for any period for which maintenance has been allowed vide impugned order by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, the same shall be adjusted. The present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, at this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. For this view, reliance can be placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co- op v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, CWP No.9563 of 2002, decided on 27.6.2002, wherein it was observed as under:- “ We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reasons for not issuing notice to the respondent workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur Civil Revision No.4498 of 2011(O&M) -3- unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner- Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.” However, liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if she feels dissatisfied with this order. 27.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge