Criminal Revision Petition No.2474 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal R. No.2474 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- September 9, 2010 Dalip Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Mithlesh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ….. RAM CHAND GUPTA J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.47362 of 2010 There is delay of 46 days in filing the present revision petition. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 46 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.R.No.2474 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 24.4.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent-wife, vide which the present petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance to respondent-wife @ Rs.1500/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner Criminal Revision Petition No.2474 of 2010 (O&M) -2- and have gone through the impugned order passed by leaned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. There is no dispute that respondent-wife is living separate from the revision- petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised on 19.5.2005 at Faridabad. The marriage was consumated, however, no child was born out of the wedlock. There was dispute regarding dowry given by the parents of respondent-wife and hence, as per allegations, she was given mental as well as physical torture by the petitioner. There was demand of motor-cycle and Rs.20,000/- cash and hence, on account of acts of cruelty being committed upon her by the present petitioner, panchayat was convened by parents of respondent-wife but to no effect. Petitioner even tried to kill the respondent by strangulation and on another occasion by attempting to administer poison to her. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on 30.9.2006 and since then she is residing with her parents. She is having no source of income. On service of summons in the main petition, the present petitioner, i.e., husband appeared through counsel, however, later on he absented and hence he was proceeded ex parte. After discussing the evidence adduced by the parties, learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, came to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground for the respondent-wife to live separate from the petitioner-husband, as she was turned out of the matrimonial home after committing various acts of cruelty upon her. Respondent-wife has also deposed that she is not in a position to maintain herself, whereas the present petitioner-husband is serving in a private company and earning Rs.5000/- per month. In the written statement filed on behalf of the present petitioner- husband as well as in his statement before Court he had admitted that he is working in Haryana Industrial Security Services, Sector 7, Faridabad, however, he had taken the plea that his monthly income is Rs.3000/- per month only. Criminal Revision Petition No.2474 of 2010 (O&M) -3- However, learned District Judge, Family court, Faridabad, has not relied upon the same as the same was not proved, as per law. It has been rightly observed that even an unskilled daily wager earns about Rs.4000/- per month in these days. Hence, by taking the income of petitioner-husband as Rs.4000/- per month, he was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance to respondent- wife. In these days of high prices it cannot be said that maintenance @ Rs.1500/- as awarded by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, to respondent-wife is on the higher side. It would be very difficult for the respondent-wife to make both ends meet even with this meagre sum of Rs.1500/- per month. There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that respondent-wife is not having sufficient cause to live separate from the petitioner-husband. There is also no force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month as fixed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, is on the higher side. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. September 9, 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) meenu JUDGE