IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No. 2306 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.3.2010 Mohinder Pal Singh ......Petitioner Vs. Harjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gol, Advocate, for the respondents. **** ORDER The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 5.9.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ambala vide which the revision filed by the respondents against order dated 1.5.2007 passed by JMIC, Ambala was allowed and respondents No. 2 and 3 (who are children of respondent No.1) were granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month each from the date of filing of application. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance was filed by respondent No.1-wife before JMIC, Ambala by stating that she was married with Mohinder Pal Singh on 5.9.1987 at Ambala City and out of said wedlock, respondents No.2 and 3 were born. At the time of filing application, respondents No. 2 and 3 were in the age group of 16 and 17 and were minors and both were impleaded through respondent No.1. The said application was dismissed by JMIC, Ambala vide order dated 1.5.2007. Crl.Revision No. 2306 of 2007 [2] Against the said order, the respondents filed Crl.Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court) Ambala which was allowed and respondents No. 2 and 3 were granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month each from the date of filing of the application. Now the present revision petition has been filed by husband against the order of Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala on the ground that the maintenance granted to respondents No. 2 and 3 is on the excessive side, keeping in view the salary of the petitioner and respondent No.1 is gainfully employed and earning approximately Rs,16,000/- per month and she has no other liability except to maintain herself and her two children. Ms.Deepali Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the application was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and no maintenance was granted and the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3 is not based on true facts and respondent No.1 is earning more than the present petitioner and there is no other liability with her. Ms.Deepali Puri further submits that the maintenance was granted by the revisonal Court on the basis that the petitioner had not disclosed his correct income, whereas there was no concealment and the basic pay of the petitioner was mentioned. Mr. Satish Goel, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the amount of maintenance given by the revisional Court is not on excessive side. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are college going students and are in age group of 18 and 20 years respectively and keeping in view the expenses of the studies at the college level, the amount of Rs.2500/- per Crl.Revision No. 2306 of 2007 [3] month to each respondent is reasonable and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the orders passed by both the Courts. Respondent No.1 is earning and getting regular salary and has not been granted any maintenance and respondents No.2 and 3 who are college going students and are in such age group where an amount of Rs.2500/- per month cannot be said to be on excessive side keeping in view the high prices and expenses incurs on studies. There is no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as the interim maintenance granted by the revisional Court is not on higher side. The petition, devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 11, 2010. raghav