IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 969 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.3.2010 Rakesh Kumar ......Petitioner Vs. Ekta and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Manish Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 9.1.2010 vide which the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent-wife as interim maintenance and order dated 12.3.2010 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, has directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is earning Rs.2500/- per month and the amount of Rs.2000/- per month to be paid to the respondent-wife is on excessive side. He further submits that the amount of maintenance has been ordered to be granted on wrong interpretation of the facts relating to the income of the petitioner. As per case of the petitioner, he was working in the factory and was getting salary at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month whereas it has been mentioned in the order that the petitioner is running a business and is drawing as salary. Both the Courts have not taken into consideration the factum of salary and the person who is getting Rs.2500/- per month cannot give maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/-. At the most, he can be directed to Crl. Revision No. 969 of 2010 [2] make payment of maintenance at the rate of 1/3rd of the total salary and as such both the orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be modified. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the orders passed by the courts below. The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent-wife on 2.10.2006 at Jalandhar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and out of the said wedlock, son was born on 20.9.2007. Petitioner as well as respondent No.2 are residing separately since June 2008. Earlier it was settled between the parties that the petitioner would give an amont of Rs.50,000/- to the wife as full and final settlement of the maintenance but that compromise could not be matured. The petitioner has also filed petition under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and the same is pending. During pendency of petition under Section 13-A, the wife filed a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 9.1.2010 and directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month as interim maintenance. The petitioner filed Crl. Revision under Section 397 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 12.3.2010, stayed the operation of order dated 9.1.2010 subject to the condition that the petitioner would deposit the entire arrears of maintenance within 15 days at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month and continue to make payment before 7th of each month. The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order of Additional Sessions Judge only on the ground that the amount of Crl. Revision No. 969 of 2010 [3] maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- is on excessive side as he is earning only 2500/- per month and moreover the lump-sum amount has already been settled i.e. Rs.50,000/- and out of the said amount, the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.15,000/-to the wife and the balance amount of Rs.35,000/- remains to be paid. The stand of the petitioner is that he is earning Rs.2500/- per month as salary. As per case of the respondent-wife, the petitioner is doing his own hosiery business and is earning Rs.30,000/- per month . Although the petitioner has denied the factum of earning Rs.30,000/- per month but he is saying that he is earning Rs.2500/- per month. Nowhere the petitioner has stated whether he is working as an employee or is earning from his own hosiery business. The factum of salary of Rs.2500/- has neither been supported by any salary certificate nor by leading any cogent evidence. Moreover, the amount of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and for her small son is not on excessive side as it is very difficult to meet out daily household expenses in these days of high prices and for bringing up a child out of an amount of Rs.2500/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that petitioner was not earning anything from the service and there is no specific denial in the reply of the application for maintenance filed by the respondent-wife. Accordingly, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 29.3.2010. raghav