IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 2483 of 2008 Date of decision: .3.2010 Kashmir Singh ......Petitioner Vs. Mohan Kaur ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: None for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed by petitioner-husband against order dated 2.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr vide which the revision filed by respondent-wife against order dated 1.9.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur in petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed and she was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition. Notice of motion was issued on 25.11.2008 on the ground that respondent has sufficient means for her maintenance and she is also residing in the house of her husband, so she is not entitled for any further maintenance. The case has been adjourned on various dates on the request of counsel for the parties. Although no interim order was passed in this case and the counsel for the respondent also made a statement in the Court that no Crl.Revision No. 2483 of 2008 [2] maintenance has been paid by the petitioner and he is in arrears of total amount of maintenance. On 12.1.2010 the petitioner was granted last opportunity to argue the matter and the case was adjourned to 11.3.2010. On 11.3.2010 learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that his brief was lost and one more opportunity be granted to argue the matter and the case was adjourned for 25.3.2010. Today, again the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present inspite of granting last opportunity. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that every time either the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present or sought time and the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel further submits that the application filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court and the revision against that order was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar and respondent was granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition vide order dated 2.4.2008. The present petition has been filed on the ground that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the respondent-wife after taking into consideration the statement of the respondent wherein she has admitted in her cross-examination that she is occupying the house of the petitioner and has also admitted in her statement that she was ready to reside with the petitioner in case the petitioner gives her money for maintenance. She further admitted that the petitioner is residing out of his own house and was not aware whether there was any property in his name or not. It has further been admitted by her that many cases have been filed Crl.Revision No. 2483 of 2008 [3] against the petitioner and his family members which show that the petitioner was only maltreated by the respondent-wife. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the grounds of revision and the orders passed by both the Courts below. As per case of the respondent in the application for maintenance, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home by the petitioner in the year 1987 and after that she was never maintained by him. The revisional Court has passed a very detailed order wherein it has specifically been held that the respondent-wife was not having any source of income and she was thrown out of her matrimonial house by the petitioner. Even during the pendency of the proceedings, she was ready to reside with the petitioner and at no point of time, the respondent has stated that she was not interested in remaining with petitioner. Moreover, only an amount of Rs.1000/- has been granted by the revisional Court and the arrears of maintenance has not been paid by the petitioner which shows the conduct of the petitioner. The grounds taken in the revision petition do not carry any weight as the petitioner cannot escape from his liability to make payment of the maintenance allowance only on the ground that he does not earn anything and nowhere it was the case of the petitioner that she left her matrimonial home and was not interested in residing with him. It has also come in the order passed by the revisional Court that the respondent is residing in a house which is constructed in the fields. Moreover, she is residing in a house constructed by the petitioner is not sufficient as some Crl.Revision No. 2483 of 2008 [4] more amount is required for her maintenance. Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the maintenance allowance of Rs.1000/- per month, granted by the revisional Court is not on higher side keeping in view the high rise in prices. Even the amount ordered by the revisional Court is not sufficient to meet both ends. No interference is required in the order dated 2.4.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar. The petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 30, 2010. raghav