Crl. Misc. No. 21897-M of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 21897-M of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.8.2009 *** Dalbir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Paramjit Kaur & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the orders passed by the Courts below fixing the maintenance of the respondents. Though the trial Court vide order dated 4.9.2008 allowed the maintenance to wife @ Rs.1000/- and that of minor daughter to the tune of Rs.800/- per month from the date of application, the learned Revisional Court below modified the amount of maintenance to Rs.900/- and Rs.700/- respectively. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the paper book carefully. The relationship between the parties and their separation is not in dispute. The whole case of the petitioner hinges upon a “Talaknama” dated 19.5.2006, but both the Courts below discarded the same so as to deny the maintenance amount to the respondents, because the said writing was never followed up in any Court of law by the parties for obtaining decree of legal separation. Further, the petitioner even after the said writing dated 19.5.2006 preferred a petition for restituion of conjugal right, which falsifies his own case of the parties getting divorce with the intervention of respectables, by way of writing dated 19.5.2006. Keeping in view the fact that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial one and have been enacted to prevent neglected wife, children or the parents, as the case may be, from the hands of starvation and vagrancy and from the point of view Crl. Misc. No. 21897-M of 2009 2 that the petitioner-husband is a man of means, rightly fixed the maintenance amount of the respondents. It cannot be said that the amount of Rs.900/- and Rs.700/- per month respectively for the respondents is on higher side, especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living. By dint of the impugned order, only a legal duty, which the petitioner has prima facie failed to oblige, has been imposed. There is no illegality of perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 11,2009 Jiten