Criminal Revision No.17 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.17 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.01.2009 Dharam Pal ......Petitioner Versus Shakuntla .......Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, whereby maintenance allowed to the respondent under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C”) was enhanced. The case of the respondent-wife as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 2 of its judgment dated 5.11.2008 is reproduced herein below:- “As per the appellant/wife, the parties were married Criminal Revision No.17 of 2009 2 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies, on 25.5.1997. They lived together till 15.6.1996 and out of their wedlock, a daughter was born. However, the respondent contracted a second marriage, without her consent, on 15.5.1996 and, therefore, she started living separately from her husband. She has got no source of income to maintain herself. Whereas, the respondent is an Ex. Serviceman, who retired from his service on 13.12.2002. He also got his retiral benefits to the extent of Rs.16 lacs and was also drawing a pension to the tune of Rs.10,800/- per month. He was also having 10 acres of agricultural land at village Mandauthi, District Jhajjar and, thus, from all sources, her was having an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. But, he neglected and refused to maintain her without any reasonable cause. She was turned out of her matrimonial home on 2.8.2003 and since then she has been residing along with her daughter Anita at village Kheri Jatt.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had allowed maintenance to the tune of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 5.9.2003 but the Appellate Court had erred in enhancing the Criminal Revision No.17 of 2009 3 amount of maintenance. The petitioner had got re-married with the consent of the respondent-wife and was supporting his family. Hence, the amount of maintenance as allowed by the trial Court was liable to be upheld. Section 125 Cr.P.C has been incorporated in the Code to achieve a social object. The provision is a measure of social justice extended to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. It provides speedy remedy to deserted wives. The provision is not punitive but remedial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, while enhancing the amount of maintenance, took into consideration the following material on record, as discussed in para 10 of its judgment:- “But, from the revenue records Ex.P-8, Ex.P-9, Ex.P- 10 and Ex.P-11, it is quite evident that he is having 1/3rd share in the total land measuring 36 Kanal 12 Marlas and is also the exclusive owner of the land measuring 5 Kanal 6 Marlas. The total land, on calculation, to his share comes to 17 Kanal 10 Marlas. Thus, he must be having income out of this land. All this documentary evidence shows that he is having income from the pension more than Rs.7,000/- per month and he must be having an income of Criminal Revision No.17 of 2009 4 Rs.5,000/- per month out of this agricultural property.” Since the petitioner is getting pension to the extent of more than Rs.7,000/- per month and is also owning agricultural land, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar rightly held that the respondent-wife was entitled to maintenance @ 1/3rd amount of pension of the petitioner plus Rs.1,000/- per month towards rent of the house, if the petitioner was not providing her a suitable residence as per her choice. It was also noticed that the respondent-wife was also fulfilling the social obligations towards her daughter. In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar calls for no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 08, 2009 anita