IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-31203 of 2009 (O/M).
Date of Decision : November 06, 2009.
Smt. Anuradha
...... Petitioners.
Versus.
Sandeep Kumar
..... Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:- Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jalandhar, in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2008, which revision
petition preferred by respondent (husband) against order dated 13.05.2008
(Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Jalandhar, vide which maintenance amount, which was to be paid to the
petitioner, was assessed as Rs. 2,500 per month.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent (husband) is
running a reputed sweet shop and has a share of 12 acres in agricultural land.
She further contends that a meager amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which
has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is not enough for survival. She
on this basis contends that order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, cannot be sustained.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through
the impugned order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned
Criminal Misc. No. M-31203 of 2009. -2-
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, as also order dated 13.05.2008
(Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Jalandhar.
Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandher, while deciding
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., preferred by the petitioner, had
assessed the income of respondent (husband) as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Out
of this income, maintenance of an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month was
granted to the petitioner. The revision petition preferred by respondent
(husband) against the said order was allowed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while considering the factum that the income of
respondent (husband) was assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Apart from his
own expenses, he has old parents to support and maintain and also has to
take care of the relatives, especially married sisters, who have to visit
parental house. On taking into consideration these aspects, learned
revisional court had reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- per
month to Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is fully justified. The contention of
counsel for the petitioner that respondent (husband) is running a reputed
sweet shop and is a shareholder of agricultural land, had not been believed
by the learned Trial Court, and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that
the income of respondent (husband) is more than Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Finding no merits in the present petition, the same stands
dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
November 06, 2009.
sjks.