Crl. Rev. No. 1170 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Rev. No. 1170 of 2009 Date of decision:- 9.2.2010 Dalip Singh ... Petitioner Versus Gurmel Kaur & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranjan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Petitioner – Dalip Singh has preferred this revision against the order dated 21.2.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which she enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs.4000/- per month in respect of Gurmel Kaur-respondent No.1 and Rs.15,00/- per month in respect of Varinder Singh- respondent No.2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No-1, who is legally wedded wife and respondent No- 2, who is minor son of the petitioner, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), which was decided by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barnala on 25.8.1998 in which respondent No.1 was granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.400/- per month whereas Crl. Rev. No. 1170 of 2009 -2- respondent No.2 was awarded that allowance @Rs.300/- per month. They further filed an application under Section 127 of the Code for enhancement of that allowance on account of the increase in the prices and the higher education expenses of the minor respondent and that application was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala and the maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs.2000/- per month and Rs.1000/- per month, respectively. The respondents preferred revision against that order which was accepted and the maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs.4000/- per month and Rs.1500/- per month, respectively. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this enhancement in the maintenance allowance is not justified keeping in view the income of the petitioner and his other liabilities. His carry home salary is hardly Rs.14000/- with which he is to maintain himself, his major son and other members of the family. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had already enhanced the maintenance allowance which was reasonable one. On the other hand it was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner is working in Indian Railways as Diesel Engine Driver and is having handsome salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. Keeping in view the income of the petitioner it cannot be said that the order of Additional Sessions Judge enhancing the maintenance allowance of the respondents suffers from any illegality. The finding was recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge that the gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.14,068/- and after deductions of Rs.6852/- is getting net salary of Rs.7216/-. Those deductions also included the maintenance allowance Crl. Rev. No. 1170 of 2009 -3- which was already being paid to the respondents. In view of the fact that petitioner had not furnished the latest salary certificate, his salary was taken as Rs.18,000/- per month. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is employed in the Indian Railways as Engine Driver and that whenever he goes out he gets additional allowance also and in that eventuality his monthly salary sometimes comes to Rs.40,000/-. There is nothing on the record to differ with the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the salary of the petitioner is to be taken as Rs.18,000/- per month. When the petitioner is not coming out with his exact salary, the Court is to make some guess work. It was in the month of March 2005 that he was getting a salary of Rs.12,237/-. In July/August 2006, the same was found to be Rs.14,068/-. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that there is increase in the dearness allowance after regular intervals and one gets increment every year. The pays are being revised regularly. A correct guess work has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the income of the petitioner. According to the petitioner he has a major son, who is living with him. In case the adults are consider as one unit each and minor child is considered as half unit then the total units in the family of the petitioner is three and a half. If the income of the petitioner is to be distributed, as per those units, then it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the enhancement in the maintenance allowance of the respondents is not justified. There is nothing on the record to differ with the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge. It cannot be said that the said order suffers from Crl. Rev. No. 1170 of 2009 -4- any illegality or is not correct or that the propriety required that the said order should not have been passed. Therefore that order cannot be interfered with, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed accordingly. February 9, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge