Crl.Rev.No. 2171 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 2171 of 2010 Date of decision: 3.8.2011 Phoola ......Petitioner Versus Om Parkash .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance against the respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that she was married to the respondent on 18.3.1964. They were blessed with two sons and one daughter out of the wedlock. However, Kuldeep, son of the parties, had later died. The behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner remained good till the birth of her son Umed Singh but, thereafter, the respondent developed illicit relations with another lady teacher, his co-employee and started giving beatings to the petitioner. Petitioner was thrown out of the matrimonial home at the time when she was expecting her son Kuldeep. For the last eleven years, the Crl.Rev.No. 2171 of 2010 2 petitioner had been residing with her brothers and maternal uncle. The respondent had refused to maintain the petitioner and was trying to grab her property. Respondent, in his reply, averred that the petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had refused to live in the matrimonial home. The petition had been filed to defame the respondent. The respondent was always ready and willing to maintain the petitioner. The respondent was also looking after his aged parents. Respondent had purchased the land in the name of the petitioner in the year 1979 out of his own funds. The basic pay of the respondent was ` 10,000/- per month. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. The Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 9.1.2010 allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and awarded her ` 1,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the petition. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly, the respondent was getting ` 10,000/- per month and was residing with his son, who was a practicing lawyer. The petitioner was residing with her daughter and was unable to maintain herself. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent was only getting pension to the tune of ` 10,000/- per month and had to maintain his old parents and grand children. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the Crl.Rev.No. 2171 of 2010 3 opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code with a view to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted wives and children. The provision has a social object to achieve. The said provision cannot be said to be punitive and is rather remedial. The purpose of the provision is to protect the deserted wives and children from vagrancy and destitution. In the present case admittedly, the respondent is getting ` 10,000/- per month as pension. The petitioner, on the other hand, is not having any income. Although the petitioner is having half share in the agricultural land measuring 40 kanals 15 marlas but the respondent is bound to maintain the petitioner. Respondent is also having agricultural land measuring 13-14 acres. Moreover, the respondent has not challenged the impugned order. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance. Hence, the only question that requires consideration before this Court is as to whether the amount of maintenance is liable to be enhanced or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has submitted that the father of the respondent is an ex- serviceman and is getting pension. The son of the respondent is a practicing advocate and is, thus, bound to maintain his children. The petitioner is also entitled to lead her life with dignity. In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to increase the amount of maintenance from ` 1,500/- to ` 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.1.2010 is modified to the extent that the respondent is liable Crl.Rev.No. 2171 of 2010 4 to pay ` 4,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of this order. It is clarified that from the date of the petition till today, the respondent would be bound to pay the maintenance @ ` 1,500/- per month. SABINA) JUDGE August 03, 2011 anita