IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20379 of 2008 Date of decision : January 22, 2010 Gauri and others Petitioners Versus Rajiv Kumar Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondent DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) The present petition is for modification of order dated 6.5.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Sirsa whereby the petitioners have been granted inadequate amount towards the maintenance allowance in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Petitioner No. 1, who is wife has been granted Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 i.e. two minor children have been granted Rs. 500/- each. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are of 12 and 10 years of age and they are studying in 6th and 5th standard respectively. He further submits that the petitioner No. 1 had deposited an amount of Rs. 5710/- towards annual fees and other expenses in the school in respect of studies of her son Abhishek and had paid an amount of Rs. 5830/- as such charges in respect of her other son Abhiwansh. He further states Crl. Misc. No. M-20379 of 2008 2 that respondent is running a chemist shop at Fazilka, District Ferozepur in the name and style of 'Beas Medical Hall' at Shastri Chowk Fazilka and he is the sole proprietor of the said medical shop. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent is an Income Tax Payee and he has been allotted PAN No. ABLPK5972B, also owns 5 acres of agricultural land from which also he is getting sufficient income. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the application for maintenance is pending before the trial Court which is likely to be decided shortly. Moreover, income of the respondent during the last few years is very less because of recession and presently earning Rs. 65,000/- - 75,000/- per annum and is already paying Rs. 2000/- per month towards maintenance. After having heard arguments of counsel for the parties and going through the order passed by Court below and other documents, I am of the view that the respondent is getting sufficient income from chemist shop as well as agricultural land. Moreover there is no specific denial as far as income of respondent is concerned with regard to his three houses and income from chemist shop which is more than Rs. 75,000/- as admitted by counsel for the respondent. Out of three houses, two houses are in the name of his father and one house is in the name of respondent and his children. Fact of having two houses has been admitted by the husband. As regards the income of the petitioner – wife, nothing has been brought on record that she is earning from doing stitching etc. Keeping in view the fact explained above, the present Crl. Misc. No. M-20379 of 2008 3 petition is allowed and respondent is directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1000/- each to petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively as maintenance. It is, however, clarified that the enhanced maintenance would be paid from the date of order. Nothing observed herein above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. With the observations made herein above, the petition stands disposed of. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) 22.01.2010 JUDGE reena