CRR No.2138 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. M-2138 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 30.7.2012 Paramveer Chauhan …Petitioner Vs. Sujata …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The compendium of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, respondent-wife Sujata filed a petition for maintenance under section 125 Cr.PC against her husband-petitioner Paramveer Chauhan. The petitioner-husband was duly served and he filed the reply to the maintenance petition. The District Judge, Family Court granted the interim maintenance to the respondent-wife. The petitioner-husband has neither paid the amount of interim maintenance nor he appeared in the Court. Consequently, ex parte proceedings were ordered against him by the District Judge, Family Court, vide order dated 29.5.2012. 2. Sequelly, taking into consideration the ex parte evidence of respondent-wife that petitioner-husband is earning ` 50,000/- per month being Engineer and totality of other facts & circumstances brought on record, the District Judge, Family Court partly accepted the maintenance petition and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of ` 7000/- p.m., by virtue of impugned order dated 3.7.2012, which, in substance, is as under (para 9):- “Now coming to quantum of maintenance, though the petitioner has stated that her husband earns Rs.50,000/- being Engineer whereas the CRR No.2138 of 2012 -2- respondent has pleaded that he is unemployed. The evidence produced on the file by the petitioner remained un-rebutted and unchallenged as the respondent has opted not to contest the petition and proceeded ex parte. There is nothing on the file to disbelieve the version that the respondent is earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Respondent has not denied of the fact that he is Engineer. Being an Engineer he must be doing something to meet his both hands and thus, his income is assessed at Rs.30,000/- per month. The respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, is legally bound to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to leave the petitioner his wife on starvation and he cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife. Looking at the price index, income of the respondent and the fact that the petitioner is unable to maintain herself, she is entitled to claim maintenance. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would best be served by awarding a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to petitioner towards maintenance, to be paid by the respondent, from the date of petition.” 3. Meaning thereby, the Family Court has duly considered the ex-parte evidence in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned order containing valid reasons cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 4. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 30.7.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No