Crl. Misc. No. M-32963 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-32963 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.11.2010 Jaswinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Bhag Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereby the petitioner has impugned order dated 16th February, 2009, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dabwali as well as judgment dated 5th October, 2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, whereby a sum of Rs.1500/- has been granted to the petitioner as maintenance allowance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the maintenance granted by the court below is on the lower side. According to him, the petitioner, who normally remains ill and has no source of income, is entitled to maintenance at least @ Rs.5000/- per month. He has further submitted that respondent, who is posted as Deputy Range Officer, is getting a pension of Rs.8000/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record annexed with the petition. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the Addl. Sessions Crl. Misc. No. M-32963 of 2010 2 Judge shows that the revisional court after examining the evidence came to conclusion that respondent Bhag Singh was suffering from certain illness for which he has to incur expenses on medicines. In fact, the petitioner, who appeared as PW1 before the trial court, admitted that Bhag Singh had suffered a paralysis attack. However, in view of the fact that the respondent is drawing a pension of Rs.8000/- per month, the revisional court held that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month. The maintenance granted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (@ Rs.750/- per month) was accordingly enhanced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned judgment nor has he been able to make out a case of further enhancement of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I am, thus, of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 10, 2010 'rajpal'