Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.10.2009. ... Sachin Kapoor ................ Petitioner vs. Simmi @ Nidhi and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 27.1.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which the amount of maintenance has been enhanced to Rs.3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,000/- for the child. Simmi @ Nidhi – wife and Raghav – son of the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, allowed the application for interim maintenance and granted an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to Simmi @ Nidhi and Rs.500/- to Raghav, vide order dated 14.7.2008. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid order, wife and son of the petitioner filed a revision petition. That revision Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -2- petition was accepted and amount of interim maintenance was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month for the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month for the son, vide order dated 27.1.2009. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed by the husband-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial Court has held that petitioner is earning only Rs. 3,500/- to 4000/- per month and on the basis of same interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to both the claimants was allowed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while taking into account, the income tax return, has enhanced the amount of maintenance. The submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that revisional Court cannot take into account the income tax return, as it was not sought to be produced. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. As per Income Tax return, the income of the petitioner is shown to be Rs.,96,420/-, meaning thereby the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- . So, in these circumstances, the Income Tax return is a reliable piece of evidence and cannot be forged as this has been submitted by the present petitioner's counsel. No ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is also barred by limitation. On that ground also, the petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 26.10.2009. Judge chugh Crl. R. No. 2367 of 2009 -3-