Crl.R.No.2670 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2670 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 27, 2010 Surender Awasthi .....Petitioner v. Sunita Rani .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.K.Samyal, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.50917 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.2670 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1.9.2010, passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, vide which the present revision- petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month to respondent- wife and Rs.1000/- per month to minor child as ad interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application pending decision of main petition besides Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. 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, Gurgaon. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that respondent-wife alongwith minor child is living separately. Allegations of respondent-wife is that she is having no income to maintain herself and minor son, whereas petitioner-husband is doing the business of computers and earning Rs.40,000/- per month from the said business and also having rental income of Rs.10,000/- per month and hence, his total income is Rs.50,000/- per month. Hence, she has claimed Rs.25,000/- per Crl.R.No.2670 of 2010 (O&M) -2- month as interim maintenance for herself and for minor child. Petitioner-husband denied that he is having computer business and that he is having income of Rs.50,000/- per month and rather it has been stated that he has no source of income. He further contended that respondent-wife is serving in Food and Supply Department at Jahangirpuri, New Delhi and is earning a handsome salary. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, have come to the conclusion that the fact that respondent-wife is serving with Food and Supply Department at Jahangirpuri, New Delhi, and is earning handsome salary is without any force as respondent-wife has stated that she left the job and hence not earning anything at present. Though no proof regarding income of petitioner-husband has been produced by respondent-wife, however, learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, has rightly observed that even a casual labour earns more than Rs.4200/- per month these days and hence the impugned order was passed. It would be very difficult for the respondent-wife to maintain herself and the minor child with meager sum of Rs.2500/- per month in these days of high prices. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is not merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 27.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge