Crl.M.No.M-6116 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-6116 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 Anuj Kumar .....Petitioner v. Bimla Devi alias Himani and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sukhvinder Singh Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the respondents ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside and quashing of judgment dated 26.8.2009, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Naraingarh, Annexure P1, whereby petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents was allowed and judgment dated 28.1.2010, Annexure P2, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. Petitioner is husband, respondent no.1 is wife and respondent nos.2 and 3 are minor children. Petitioner has also obtained ex parte divorce against respondent no.1. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance was filed by all the respondents against the present petitioner. Learned Magistrate assessed income of petitioner @ Rs.5000/- per month and ordered for making maintenance @ Rs.1000/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.800/- per month to respondent nos.2 and 3, children. Revision against the said order was filed by the present petitioner as well as by the respondents. Both the Crl.M.No.M-6116 of 2010 (O&M) -2- revision petitions were decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, vide judgment Annexure P2, dismissing the same except to the extent that maintenance to the children was enhanced from Rs.800/- per month for both the children to Rs.800/- per month for each child, i.e., Rs.1600/- per month for both the children, i.e., total maintenance came to Rs.2600/- per month. Only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, could not clarify the order passed by learned Magistrate and that there is no ambiguity in the order passed by learned Magistrate, for awarding Rs.800/- per month to both the children. However, revision was also filed by the respondents for enhancement of maintenance and hence, learned revisional Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.800/- per month for each child and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order. Even if income of present petitioner is taken to be Rs.5000/- p.m., who is stated to be running a business of auto spare parts, though disputed by the present petitioner, maintenance for wife and two minor children @ Rs.2600/- per month cannot be said to be, in any way, excessive in these days of high prices. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition filed by petitioner-Anuj Kumar for quashing of orders dated 26.8.2009, Annexure P1, and dated 28.1.2010, Annexure P2, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 13.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge