Crl. Revision No. 3139 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 3139 of 2011 Date of Decision : 14.12.2011 Jitender Yadav …Petitioner Versus Anita Yadav …Respondent ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2011, passed by District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, against grant of maintenance at the rate of `5,000/- to the respondent-wife. Petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, inter alia, alleging that her marriage with the petitioner-husband was solemnized on 27.04.2009 according to Hindu rites. At that time sufficient dowry was given to the petitioner-husband and his family members and in the dowry Swift Desire car was also given. According to the wife her husband owns a residential house measuring 300 sq. yards in village Carterpuri which is a double storeyed building having 8 shops which are on rent at the rate of `24,000/- per month while the rental Crl. Revision No. 3139 of 2011 2 value of the said residential house is `10,000/- per month. Beside this he is also having two plots in Rajender Park and is also doing the work of property dealing and his monthly income is `30,000/- per month and as such she is entitled for `20,000/- per month as maintenance allowance and litigation expenses. The petitioner-husband contested the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and denied all the averments pleaded in the petition. Both the parties led their evidence and the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, after appreciating the evidence available on the record granted `5,000/- per month as maintenance. Feeling aggrieved against the said order the petitioner-husband has knocked the door of this Court by way of present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the evidence led by the parties have not been properly appreciated by the lower court below and in fact the petitioner-husband is doing the labour work and as such the maintenance granted by the court below is on the higher side and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Admittedly, the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on the ground that she is not having any source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Though the respondent-wife has alleged that the petitioner-husband was earning `30,000/- per month yet she has not led any evidence to prove this fact. At the same time the averments pleaded in the petition have not been controverted by the petitioner-husband in his written statement. Be that as it Crl. Revision No. 3139 of 2011 3 may, it is not denied by the petitioner-husband that a Swift Desire car was given in the dowry. From this fact also, it can be presumed that the petitioner-husband must be having sufficient income to maintain a car. No parents would give a Swift Desire car to a labour person or to a person who is earning a meager amount. Moreover, it is duty of the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife who is not having any source of income. Lower court below after appreciating all the circumstances and status of the parties assessed the income of the petitioner-husband at `12,000/- per month and has also fixed the maintenance payable to the respondent-wife at the rate of `5,000/- per month which can not at all be said to be exaggerated. I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) December 14, 2011 Judge Anand