In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-298 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:8.1.2010 Jitender .....Petitioner v. Shama and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The marriage between the petitioner and his wife Smt. Shama (respondent No.1) was solemnized on 29.11.2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. A son, namely, Rahul (respondent No.2) was born to the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 10.11.2004. On account of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1, the respondents filed a petition (Annexure-P.1) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. Along with the petition an application (Annexure-P.2) was filed for grant of interim maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month; besides, Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. The petitioner filed his written statement (Annexure- P.3) to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also his reply (Annexure- P.4) to the application seeking interim maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure-P.5) awarded maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as interim maintenance from the date of order. The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed a revision petition Cr. Misc. No.M-298 of 2010 [2] (Annexure-P.6) which has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-P.7). The orders dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala and the order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala are assailed in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the maintenance awarded to the respondents is on higher side and, in fact, the petitioner has gross total annual income of Rs.52,365/-. He has referred to the income-tax return of the petitioner for the assessment year 2009-10 in which the gross total income of the petitioner is Rs.52,365/-. Therefore, it is submitted that the monthly income of the petitioner comes to about Rs.4,400/-. As such, the amount awarded to the respondents is unduly high. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. A perusal of the order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala shows that the respondent No.1-wife has obtained documents under the Right to Information Act in which the petitioner has been shown as a wholesale distributor of seeds and pesticides. He is sole proprietor of M/s Sai Beez, Radour Road, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. He is running a shop having measurement 9' x 31'. A copy of the site plan has been placed on record. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the fact that the petitioner was an income-tax assessee, his annual income must be more than Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. This would bring the income of the petitioner to at least more than Rs.15,000/- per month. The order dated 12.8.2009 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and 24.11.2009 (Annexure-P.7) passed Cr. Misc. No.M-298 of 2010 [3] by the learned Sessions Judge are only for the purpose of payment of interim maintenance. The contentions regarding the liability and assessment of the amount of maintenance to be paid is yet to be determined on the basis of evidence and material that is to be produced before the Court. The fact of filing of income-tax return for the assessment year 2009-10 showing the gross total income of the petitioner as Rs.52,365/- is not to be gone into at this stage and it would more appropriately be considered by the Court below in case the same is tendered in evidence. The amount of interim maintenance awarded keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is running a sole proprietorship concern dealing in the wholesale distribution of seeds and pesticides cannot be said to be excessive or on the higher side. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 8, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*