Criminal Misc. No. M-4844 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-4844 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18.02.2010 Gurmeet Singh son of Late Sh. Sajjan Singh, c/o Gurudwara Nanaksar, Sector 28, Chandigarh. ... Petitioner Versus Mayank minor through his mother & natural Guardian Paramjit Kaur, c/o SDO Electricity, Sector 15, Chandigarh. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Kulwant K.K., Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 10.04.09, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting maintenance to the respondent minor son of the petitioner, and the order dated 03.09.09, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, the revision-petition, was dismissed, against the same, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner, Criminal Misc. No. M-4844 of 2010 2 was not doing any work. She further submitted that, the petitioner, was not earning anything, but, on the other hand, his wife was earning. She further submitted that, thus, the Courts below, were wrong, in awarding interim maintenance allowance, to the respondent minor son against the petitioner. She further submitted that the mother of the respondent, filed a petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for judicial separation, on the ground of unemployment of the petitioner (her husband), and, in that petition, an application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite, by the petitioner. She further submitted that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, on 08.10.08, granted maintenance pendente lite of Rs. 2,000/- per month, to the petitioner, and Rs. 3,000/-, as litigation expenses. She further submitted that since it was held, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in the petition, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed during the pendency of the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that the petitioner, was not earning anything and granted him maintenance, pendente lite, how the interim maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month, could be granted, against him, to the respondent, his minor son. She further submitted that the order, in the application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed, during the pendency of petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the orders impugned, passed in the petition, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., granting interim maintenance, are contradictory. Criminal Misc. No. M-4844 of 2010 3 She further submitted that the orders impugned rendered by the Courts below, being illegal, are liable to be set aside. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The respondent, in the instant case, is admittedly the minor son of the petitioner. The petition, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was filed, by the minor son against his father. It is the duty of the father to maintain his minor son. He cannot take shelter, under the plea, that since he is not doing anything, maintenance cannot be granted, to his minor son against him. The mere fact, that in application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, in the petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted by his wife, he was granted maintenance pendente lite, to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month, did not absolve him of his legal liability to maintain his minor son. The proceedings, under the Hindu Marriage Act, and under Section 125 Cr.P.C., are quite different and distinct. In Satish Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2005(1), RCR (Criminal), 256, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the maintenance of the children is obligatory, on the father (irrespective of his religion), as long as, he is in a position to do so and the children have no independent means of their own. In Chandra Bhan Vs. Smt. Sudha Rani, 2005(2), RCR (Criminal), 347, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that a person, cannot Criminal Misc. No. M-4844 of 2010 4 refuse to pay maintenance allowance, on the ground of insolvency. An insolvent, if physically it, has to pay maintenance. In Mamindla Salloo Vs. Mamidalla Padma & another, 2007(1), RCR (Criminal), 203, it was held that, even if, the husband is professional beggar, insolvent, minor or monk, so long as, he is able bodied and ekes out his livelihood, he has to pay the maintenance allowance. The Courts below, took into consideration the order, passed in the application, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed during the pendency of the petition, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was instituted by the wife of the petitioner, and were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the petitioner, being an able- bodied person could not absolve himself of his legal liability, to maintain his minor son. The discretion, exercised by the Courts below, in granting interim maintenance, to the respondent, cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious. The orders of the Courts below, therefore, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The orders impugned, are, thus, not liable to be quashed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 4844 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 18.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE