Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: July 19, 2010 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009 Sudhir Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Kusum and others …..Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-29746 of 2009 Smt. Kusum and others …..Petitioners Vs. Sudhir Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009 and Advocate for the respondent in Crl. Misc. No.M-29746 of 2009 Mr.N.K. Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-29746 of 2009 and advocate for the Respondents in Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009.. -.- Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009 [2] M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. M-23037 and M-29746 of 2009 filed by both the parties aggrieved by the same order passed by the revisional Court vide order dated July 17, 2009 confirming the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, granting interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.2000/- per month to the wife Kusum and Rs.3000/- per month each to Km.Dipika and Km.Yogita i.e. total Rs.8000/- to be paid by Sudhir Singh from the date of filing petition after adjusting the amount paid as interim maintenance. The revisional Court had observed that since Kusum was sin service from May 1, 2003 to October 5, 2005 as such she would not be entitled to any maintenance allowance in respect of said period. Counsel for Kusum has contended that even if it is presumed that the wife was able to earn something for a short duration, the said fact will not prejudice her rights. I have considered the said contention and I am of the opinion that the circumstance of wife having been in earning capacity would certainly be a determining factor for assessing the quantum of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Taking into consideration the interest of justice, it is ordered that instead of a sum of Rs.2000/- per month for a period from May 1, 2003 to October 5, 2005 Kusum would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- per month only from May 1, 2003 to October 5, 2005 as she has been held to have been earning for the said period for which the entire Crl. Misc. No. M-23037 of 2009 [3] liability cannot be foisted upon the husband. The husband is entitled to some relaxation in case the wife is capable of earning to some extent. With the above modification, the petitions filed by both the parties are dismissed confirming the orders passed except the abovesaid modification. It is again clarified that for the period from May 1, 2003 to October 5, 2005, the wife will be entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- per month but for the remaining period, she will be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. July 19, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE