Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 27, 2011 Pardeep ..... Petitioner. Versus Poonam and others. .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the respondents. ***** JORA SINGH, J (ORAL) Pardeep, preferred this revision petition to challenge the judgment dated 23.04.2010 passed by District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon and by this order, petitioner was directed to pay ` 2000/- per month as maintenance for maintaining Poonam as well as her two minor sons and also directed to pay ` 5000/- per month as rent. Story, in brief, is that an application under Section 12, 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by respondent No.1 i.e. petitioner’s wife on the allegation that she was married to the petitioner on 22.04.2004 and out of this wedlock two sons were born. The father of the respondent No.1 had spent more than Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2010 2 ` 3.00 lacs at the time of marriage but behaviour of the petitioner and his family members was not good. After some time petitioner started harassing her for want of dowry but her father being poor man was not in a position to give more dowry. To save the marriage, father of the respondent No.1 gave ` 6.00 lacs to the petitioner for opening a shop and for construction of a house. On 15.04.2008, petitioner and his family members gave some poisonous substance to respondent No.1 and she was admitted in Tirath Ram Hospital, Gurgaon. After the abovesaid incident respondents are residing separately at Village Gaurli Khurd. The respondent No.1 also filed complaint under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioner. In reply, the petitioner denied all the allegations made by respondent No.1. In view of the affidavits of both the parties, petitioner was directed to pay ` 2000/- per month as maintenance for maintaining Poonam as well as her two minor sons and also directed to pay ` 5000/- per month as rent. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that as per impugned order no payment was made to respondents. Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was also moved by the respondents and vide order dated 09.04.2010 passed by District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon, petitioner was directed to pay a sum of ` 2000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance allowance. No payment either as per order dated 09.04.2010 or order dated 23.04.2010. Perusal of file shows that respondent No.1-Poonam is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and out of this wedlock two minor sons Mohit and Rohit were born. Minor sons are in the Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2010 3 custody of respondent No.1. Parties are residing separately. Petitioner is owning two acres of land and working as driver in Dev Samaj School. Petitioner is earning ` 8000/- per month. Reply was filed by the petitioner to the effect that he is not owning land and is not a driver. In fact he is unemployed but no allegation that he is not keeping good health or unable to earn. Respondents filed affidavit RW1/A to the effect that petitioner is owning agricultural land measuring 4 kanal and a house at his native village. In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, allegation of the petitioner is that he is not owning land and is unemployed but in the affidavit RW1/A allegation of the petitioner is that he is owning agricultural land measuring 4 kanal and a house at his native village and is paying ` 2000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance allowance. Affidavit RW1/A further shows that agreement to sell dated 10.08.2008 was executed by the petitioner and ` 1.00 lac was received as earnest money. On the one hand allegation of the petitioner is that he is not owning land, house and is unemployed on the other hand as per affidavit RW1/A, he is owning land and house and ` 1.00 lac was received as per agreement to sell dated 10.08.2008, ` 1.00 lac was to be collected on 19.11.2009. As per evidence available on the file and affidavits District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon rightly directed the petitioner to pay ` 2000/- per month as maintenance for maintaining Poonam as well as her two minor sons and also directed to pay ` 5000/- per month as rent i.e. total ` 7000/- for three persons i.e. for respondent No.1-Poonam and her two minor sons. Criminal Revision No. 1431 of 2010 4 In view of all discussed above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by District Judge Family Court, Gurgaon and the same is upheld. Revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. May 27, 2011 (JORA SINGH) sham JUDGE