Crl. Misc. No.M-36579 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-36579 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 Dinesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Akhilesh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and for quashing the order dated 27.03.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, whereby, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been awarded to the respondent. The respondent, who is the minor son of the petitioner, filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance allowance. He was 5 ½ years of age and was a school going boy at the time of filing of petition i.e. on 01.02.2006. Keeping in view the educational expenses of the minor son of the petitioner, his social status, he was held to be entitled to maintenance to the tune of ` 10,000/- per month from the petitioner vide order dated 27.03.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura. Crl. Misc. No.M-36579 of 2010 2 Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed the petition against the order dated 27.03.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura. The Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of ` 10,000/- to ` 5,000/- per month. Heard. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of both the orders dated 07.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, and order dated 27.03.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura. Second Revision is not maintainable. Hence, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a well settled proposition of law that second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable unless and until there is a miscarriage of justice. Admittedly, the petitioner is earning ` 35,000/- per month. The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that ` 5,000/- is on the higher side. The petitioner has remarried and a girl child has been born out of the said wedlock. In view of his new responsibilities, ` 5,000/- is on the higher side and the second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court at Rajpura has no jurisdiction. The minor child of the petitioner is stated to be studying in Holly Angle School at Rajpura. In evidence, his fee receipts, receipts of charges of his van, as well as, receipts for the year 2008 and other receipts of books have been produced on record. The two Courts below had come to a definite conclusion that the other members of the petitioner i.e. his mother, brother and sister were independent and were able to look after themselves. The fact that the petitioner had remarried and has a girl child, does not absolve him from his responsibilities of his son from his earlier Crl. Misc. No.M-36579 of 2010 3 marriage who needs equal, if not more, care and attention. Taking into account the expenditure incurred by the mother on the minor and the various receipts referred to by the two Courts below, ` 5,000/- as maintenance is not excessive. The second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts at Rajpura had no jurisdiction, also has no merit. It is own admission of the petitioner that the respondent was removed from Shimla Public School and was admitted in the School at Rajpura, where, he was residing with his grandparents. It is also admitted that the marriage of the petitioner was performed with the mother of the respondent on 11.11.1999 at Rajpura. Further, it is also admitted that the respondent was born at Rajpura. FIR No.188 of 2004 was also registered at Police Station City Rajpura. At the time of filing of the petition, the mother of the respondent was residing in the house of her parents at Rajpura along with the minor son. Thus, it cannot be said that the Courts at Rajpura have no jurisdiction. In case, the mother of the minor respondent shifts to any other place, the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Rajpura cannot be taken away as the minor respondent is, in any case, a permanent resident of Rajpura. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere in the well reasoned order dated 07.10.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby, the revision filed by the petitioner has been partly allowed and order dated 27.03.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura, whereby, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C has been awarded to the respondent has been already modified. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 14.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet