CRM-M No.19575 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.19575 of 2009(O&M) Decided on :08.12.2009 Smt. Shashi Bala @ Rachhna ... Petitioner versus Sh. Kamal Nain ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for respondent. **** 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 against the order dated 20.05.2009 passed in a revision by the ld. Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.PC granted to the petitioner was reduced from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,300/-. Brief facts of the case are that originally, the petitioner had filed an application two decades ago wherein Rs.300/- was awarded as maintenance. Thereafter periodic enhancement was given to the petitioner and the present orders have also come under Section 127 of Cr.PC with the prayer that the maintenance CRM-M No.19575 of 2009(O&M) -2- amount should be suitably increased in view of the fact that after the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission the salary of the respondent has gone upto Rs.19,000/- odd. Ld. Revisional Court has taken into consideration the actual carry home salary viz Rs.6,600/- p.m. and has awarded maintenance @ Rs.1,300/- as mentioned above. A perusal of Annexure P-3 reveals that out of total salary of Rs.19,432/- Rs.10,000/- was being deducted on account of Provident Fund. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court titled as Madhu Sudan vs. Pushpa @ Bhawana reported as 1987 (2) HLR page 9 wherein the Hon'ble Single Bench held as follows: “In the impugned order no such considerations have been made and even gross or disposable income has not been arrived at. When the order of maintenance pendente lite is not supported by reasons and does not discuss the pros and cons of rival versions of the parties relating to the quantum of income of husband, the order is liable to be set aside.” In my opinion, the approach of the Revisional Court was seriously flawed and that optional deduction of Provident Fund can never be excluded from the carry home salary of the respondent. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order of the ld. Revisional Court is set aside while that of the ld. Judicial CRM-M No.19575 of 2009(O&M) -3- Magistrate awarding Rs.3,000/- as maintenance is upheld. December 08, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE