CRM-M-30370 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
Crl. Misc. No.54922 of 2009 and
CRM-M-30370 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2009
****
Ravinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner
VS.
Aradhna and another . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)
Crl. Misc. No.549221 of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
CRM-M-30370 of 2009
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1793 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of order dated
19.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class Ludhiana and order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ludhiana vide which petitioner
has been directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the
respondent No.1 (wife) and sum of Rs.2000/- has been awarded in favour
of respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that
the petitioner got married with respondent No.1 on 7.12.1996 and
separated from his parents on 23.7.1997. A girl child (respondent No.2)
was born on 26.7.1997. He is living on rent and met with an accident on
8.4.1998 and is not in a position to pay the amount, which has been
CRM-M-30370 of 2009 -2-
determined by the courts below. However, it is submitted that he has
been paying interim maintenance upto the date to both the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that an amount of
Rs.5000/- is on the higher side, which deserved to be reviewed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the record.
A similar arguments were raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner before the Courts below and the learned Revisional Court,
after appreciation of evidence much less the statement of the petitioner
himself has found, which is as under: –
“He has stated that he does not know in which class
the respondent / petitioner No.2 is studying. In his
cross-examination he has admitted it to be correct that
he has worked under the name and style of M/s R.S.
Property Dealer. Though he has stated that this firm
is a Gurbachan Singh Thind. But thereafter at the
same time he has admitted that visiting card Ex.PX
belongs to him and on this visiting card it has no where
been mentioned that he is employee of M/s R.S.
Property Dealer or Shri Gurbachan Singh Thind. In his
Cross-examination he has further admitted that he is
having bank accounts with UCO Bank,
Haibowal, SBI, Gurdev Nagar and Punjab National
Bank, Haibowal, but he did not produce the passport
despite demand. He has also admitted that shops in
front of his family hose, have been rented out to the
tenant and he is only son of his parents. He ahs also
admitted that he was owning Maruti Car and he has
been using Zen Car also. These admissions of the
revisionist / respondent are sufficient to prove that he
CRM-M-30370 of 2009 -3-is property dealer and belongs to a rich family having
cars and sufficient property.
The maintenance allowance granted by the Ld. Trial
magistrate is not excessive or arbitrary, as the prices
of goods of daily needs are rising very much these days
and more so, the respondent / petitioner is to maintain
and look after the child also. Keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the case, the maintenance was
fixed at Rs.5000/- per month in the proportion of
Rs.3000/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.2000/-
per month for petitioner No.2 by the Trial.”
In view of the above, I do not find any error in the orders of
the learned Court below, therefore, the present petition is hereby
dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
OCTOBER 29, 2009 JUDGE
vivek