CRM-M-30370 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No.54922 of 2009 and CRM-M-30370 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 29.10.2009 **** Ravinder Kumar . . . . Petitioner VS. Aradhna and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) Crl. Misc. No.549221 of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CRM-M-30370 of 2009 This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1793 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of order dated 19.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Ludhiana and order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Ludhiana vide which petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the respondent No.1 (wife) and sum of Rs.2000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the petitioner got married with respondent No.1 on 7.12.1996 and separated from his parents on 23.7.1997. A girl child (respondent No.2) was born on 26.7.1997. He is living on rent and met with an accident on 8.4.1998 and is not in a position to pay the amount, which has been CRM-M-30370 of 2009 - 2 - determined by the courts below. However, it is submitted that he has been paying interim maintenance upto the date to both the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that an amount of Rs.5000/- is on the higher side, which deserved to be reviewed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A similar arguments were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Courts below and the learned Revisional Court, after appreciation of evidence much less the statement of the petitioner himself has found, which is as under: - “He has stated that he does not know in which class the respondent / petitioner No.2 is studying. In his cross-examination he has admitted it to be correct that he has worked under the name and style of M/s R.S. Property Dealer. Though he has stated that this firm is a Gurbachan Singh Thind. But thereafter at the same time he has admitted that visiting card Ex.PX belongs to him and on this visiting card it has no where been mentioned that he is employee of M/s R.S. Property Dealer or Shri Gurbachan Singh Thind. In his Cross-examination he has further admitted that he is having bank accounts with UCO Bank, Haibowal, SBI, Gurdev Nagar and Punjab National Bank, Haibowal, but he did not produce the passport despite demand. He has also admitted that shops in front of his family hose, have been rented out to the tenant and he is only son of his parents. He ahs also admitted that he was owning Maruti Car and he has been using Zen Car also. These admissions of the revisionist / respondent are sufficient to prove that he CRM-M-30370 of 2009 - 3 - is property dealer and belongs to a rich family having cars and sufficient property. The maintenance allowance granted by the Ld. Trial magistrate is not excessive or arbitrary, as the prices of goods of daily needs are rising very much these days and more so, the respondent / petitioner is to maintain and look after the child also. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the maintenance was fixed at Rs.5000/- per month in the proportion of Rs.3000/- per month for petitioner No.1 and Rs.2000/- per month for petitioner No.2 by the Trial.” In view of the above, I do not find any error in the orders of the learned Court below, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 29, 2009 JUDGE vivek