Crl. Misc. No.M-21501 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-21501 of 2009 Date of Decision: 11.11.2010 Subhash Verma ....Petitioner Versus Dayawanti alias Mansi ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-21501 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No.M-22697 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-21501 of 2009. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 02.05.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.01.2009 passed by JMIC., Sirsa has been dismissed and for quashing the further proceedings arising out thereto qua the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent wife of the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner in the Court of JMIC, Sirsa. The respondent wife also filed application for interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial Court granted interim maintenance to the tune of ` 1200/- Crl. Misc. No.M-21501 of 2009 2 per month. The petitioner, as well as, the respondent wife aggrieved from the order dated 23.01.2009 passed by JMIC, Sirsa filed the revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Sirsa. The Sessions Judge, Sirsa disposed of both the revision petitions by joint order dated 02.05.2009 and enhanced the interim maintenance to the tune of ` 2000/- per month. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the husband. Crl. Misc. No.M-22697 of 2009 has been filed by the wife and has also challenged the same and prayed for enhancement of said amount. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner- husband is that the petitioner has a very small piece of un irrigated land i.e. about 04 bighas in Rajasthan from which the petitioner is unable to get so much income and the respondent wife is having ownership of 1/4th share of land out of the measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas in Village Chakkan, District Haryana which is a fertile land. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is not denied by the wife that she has 1/4th share of land out of the measuring 32 kanals 14 marlas. It is apparent that the petitioner-husband has almost three times more land than of the respondent wife. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent-wife is getting any income out of the same, whereas, it is the moral duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife. The petitioner is able-bodied person and is also having an agricultural land. ` 2,000/- is hardly sufficient even to make both ends meet. The same is not excessive. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 11.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet