Criminal Misc. No. M-16796 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16796 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.07.2010 Nathu Ram ....Petitioner V/s Pinki and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.S. Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders dated 11.11.2009 and 20.04.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal respectively. Brief factual background of the case is that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred by Shanti Devi and her two minor daughters claiming maintenance from the petitioner. Shanti Devi got married to the petitioner in the year 1979. The petitioner had allegedly concealed the factum of his earlier marriage to one Rajpyari. Shanti Devi came to know about the previous marriage in June 2000. This led to matrimonial discord. The petitioner thereafter started living with his previous wife and children. Apart from other litigation, present petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred by Shanti Devi wherein she claimed that petitioner was regular employee in Veterinary department and was earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. It was claimed by her that in view of Criminal Misc. No. M-16796 of 2010 2 her meager earnings she needed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month. This prayer was, however, opposed by the petitioner. It was not denied that Shanti Devi was working as ANM in Primary Health Centre, Kalyat. The husband (petitioner herein) alleged that Shanti Devi had also concealed the factum of her earlier marriage to one Tara Chand. After considering the evidence led before it the trial court came to the conclusion that Rs. 3,000/- would be an appropriate amount to be awarded as maintenance to Shanti Devi. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. The same was, however, dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the courts below have awarded maintenance on the higher side. According to him, courts below ignored from consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, no maintenance whatsoever was payable by the petitioner to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is evident that the courts below on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that Shanti Devi was legally wedded wife of the petitioner and there were two minor daughters from the wed-lock. The birth certificates of both the daughters show Nathu Ram (petitioner) as their father. The courts below, therefore, came to the conclusion that petitioner had obligation to maintain his wife and children. Nathu Ram had admitted in his cross examination that his salary was Rs. 9,000/-. Both the courts below thus, keeping in view the cost of living, inflation etc. found Rs. 3,000/- as appropriate amount to be awarded as maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any legal infirmity Criminal Misc. No. M-16796 of 2010 3 with the impugned order. As regards reappraisal of evidence at this stage, it is settled that scope for same in inherent jurisdiction is limited. Even otherwise I do not find any defect, legal or otherwise with the findings arrived by the courts below and the maintenance assessed. I thus find no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. July 19, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE To be referred to the Reporters or not? (Y/N)