ORDER
Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. Santosh Kumari was married to Satish Kumar on October 21, 1985 according to Hindu rites. Two children viz. Gauri and Arun, were born from this wedlock.
2. Facts culminating into this petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C. by Santosh Kumari and her minor children Gauri and Arun, briefly stated are that from the very beginnig the behaviour of Satish Kumar and his family towards Santosh Kumari had been cruel. They also demanded cash from her parents. To fulfil their demand, on one occasion, her parents gave Rs. 10,000/- and on another occasion, Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent, but there was no end to their greed which kept on increasing. Even after the birth of the children, they wanted that the entire expenditure should be borne by her parents. Thus, 15 days after the birth of the child she was thrown out of the house. In December, 1991 the respondent and his parents and brother conspired to kill her by pouring kerosene on her. With the intervention of respectables and relatives, she was taken back to the matrimonial home but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent and his family members.
3. On 3.3.1992, Satish Kumar gave merciless beatings to Santosh Kumari and turned her out of the house, but again she was sent back to the matrimonial home, as the matter was settled on 9.5.1992, but she was again thrown out of the matrimonial home in May, 1992 and since then she has been living with her parents alongwith the children. She has got no source of income nor she is able to maintain herself and her minor children. Therefore, she claimed maintenance from the respondent for herself and her minor children as the respondent is earning Rs. 9,000/- per month from all the sources of income taken together.
4. The learned Magistrate finding merit in the claim, allowed her maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month to her and Rs. 400/- each to the minor children as the respondent’s income from all the sources was assessed at Rs. 9,000/-. Satish Kumar-respondent challenged the finding by way of filing the revision petition, which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. The amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner was slashed from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month to Santosh Kumari and from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 250/- each to the minor children. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision for enhancement of the maintenance amount.
5. I have heard Mr. Manjeet Dalai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O.P. Goyal, learned Counsel for the respondent.
6. Mr. Manjeet Dalai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioners are solely dependent on the incomes of the parents pf Santosh Kumari-petitioner No. 1. They have got no source of income whereas respondent is getting income of Rs. 9,000/- per month from all the sources. In these days, the amount of Rs. 250/- allowed to each child is not enough for their maintenance, particularly when they are to get proper education. Even the amount of Rs. 400/- per month allowed to Santosh Kumari cannot be said to be reasonable because she has not only to maintain herself, but she has also to spend on the education and well-being of her two minor children. Thus, the Revisional Court was in error in slashing down the amount of maintenance as awarded by the learned Magistrate.
7. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
8. It is the bounden duty of the father to maintain his wife and minor children. It is fully proved that he has neglected and refused to maintain them. The narration of facts as above, do indicate that under the circumstances, Santosh Kumari petitioner was time and again sent to the matrimonial home, but every time she was turned out of the home. It shows that she was not treated as a human-being, rather she was made to shuttle from her parental home to matrimonial home and vice versa.
9. Under the circumstances, the order passed by the Revisional Court cannot be maintained. Instead, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, needs to be restored. As the amount of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code Criminal Procedure can hardly be considered sufficient for bringing up the children.
10. In the result, this petition is accepted.