Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 26.10.2009.
...
Sachin Kapoor
................ Petitioner
vs.
Simmi @ Nidhi and another
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Munish Behl, Advocate
for the petitioner.
...
K.C. Puri, J. (Oral)
This is a revision petition against the order dated 27.1.2009
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which the
amount of maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month,
i.e. Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,000/- for the child.
Simmi @ Nidhi – wife and Raghav – son of the petitioner,
filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, allowed
the application for interim maintenance and granted an amount of Rs.
1,000/- per month to Simmi @ Nidhi and Rs.500/- to Raghav, vide
order dated 14.7.2008. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid order,
wife and son of the petitioner filed a revision petition. That revision
Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -2-
petition was accepted and amount of interim maintenance was
enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,000/- per
month for the son, vide order dated 27.1.2009.
Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid order, the present
revision petition has been filed by the husband-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial
Court has held that petitioner is earning only Rs. 3,500/- to 4000/- per
month and on the basis of same interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per
month to both the claimants was allowed. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge, while taking into account, the income tax return, has
enhanced the amount of maintenance.
The submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist
is that revisional Court cannot take into account the income tax
return, as it was not sought to be produced.
I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not
find any force in that submission.
As per Income Tax return, the income of the petitioner is
shown to be Rs.,96,420/-, meaning thereby the monthly income of
the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- . So, in these circumstances, the Income
Tax return is a reliable piece of evidence and cannot be forged as
this has been submitted by the present petitioner’s counsel.
No ground for interference is made out.
The revision petition is also barred by limitation. On that
ground also, the petition stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri )
26.10.2009. Judge
chugh
Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -3-