Crl.R.No.2674 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2674 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 27, 2010 Amit .....Petitioner v. Smt.Nisha and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26.8.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide which respondent- wife was granted maintenance @ Rs.8000/- per month and the minor child was granted maintenance @ Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition till the date of attaining the age of majority by the minor child and to the respondent-wife till further orders. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that petitioner-wife with minor child is living separate from the petitioner-husband. As per averments of respondent no.1-wife she is having no income to maintain herself and minor child, whereas petitioner-husband is running a business of cable network in Ballabgarh and is earning Rs.40,000/- from the said business, having rental income of Rs.30,000/- per month and he is also having income of Rs.20,000/- per month from the business of property dealer and hence his total income is Rs.90,000/- per month. Petitioner-husband denied his income as pleaded by the respondent-wife and has taken the plea that respondent-wife is also earning Crl.R.No.2674 of 2010 (O&M) -2- by running a boutique. However, no evidence in this regard has come. He has taken the plea that he is only a part-time employee and earning Rs.2800/- only. Interim maintenance was granted by learned District Judge,Family Court, Faridabad, and however, petitioner-husband failed to pay the interim maintenance despite direction of the Court and hence defence of petitioner-husband was struck off vide order dated 11.8.2010. Learned District Judge, Family Court while placing reliance upon the evidence adduced by the respondent-wife came to the conclusion that respondent-wife is having sufficient cause to live separate from the revision petitioner-husband as various acts of cruelty have been committed upon her by the petitioner-husband. Respondent-wife and minor child is having no income to maintain themselves and hence they are entitled to seek maintenance from the petitioner-husband. So far as income of revision petitioner-husband is concerned, though plea is taken that he is earning Rs.90,000/- per month, learned District Judge, Family Court has taken his income as Rs.30,000/- per month in the absence of any documentary evidence, taking into consideration the status and earning capacity of the petitioner-husband and granted maintenance allowance to the respondents, as aforementioned. Revision-petitioner-husband has withheld the best evidence, i.e., documentary evidence regarding his income. Moreover as defence of petitioner-husband was already struck off by learned District Judge,Family Court, by relying upon the evidence adduced by respondent-wife, income of petitioner-husband has been rightly assessed as Rs.30,000/- per month. Hence, it cannot be said that awarding of maintenance @ Rs.12000/- per month to the respondents is, in any way, excessive. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 27.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.R.No.2674 of 2010 (O&M) -3-