Crl.Rev.No.2476/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.2476/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 6.10.2010. Charan Singh ....................Petitioner v. Smt.Saroj and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Kuldip Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) This revision petition under Section 401 Cr.PC by petitioner-husband is directed against the judgment dated 27.7.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent-wife was partly allowed granting her maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month from the date of institution of petition under Section 125 Cr.PC and the revision qua her minors for enhancement of maintenance already granted by the trial court vide judgment dated 8.8.2009 was dismissed. Briefly noticed the respondent-Smt. Saroj herself and on behalf of her three minor children filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC against the petitioner-husband. It was stated by her that she was legally wedded wife of the petitioner and three minor children were Crl.Rev.No.2476/2010(O&M) 2 born out of their wedlock. The petitioner and his family allegedly used to treat her with cruelty, harass and beat her for not bringing a motorcycle and fridge. Respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home many a times. Finally on 18.10.2007 she alongwith her brothers Wazir Singh, Bhoj Ran and Cousin Sonu went to her matrimonial home but despite repeated requests, petitioner and his family members gave beatings to them and did not agree to keep and maintain respondent. Respondent had pleaded that she was a simpleton lady with no source of income to keep and maintain herself/her minor children. Upon notice of the petition, petitioner filed reply controverting the allegations regarding demand of dowry and beatings / harassment to respondent wife. It was stated by him that in fact brothers of respondent-wife had given beatings to him for which he got himself medico legally examined and on the basis of his statement a case under Sections 452, 323,324,325 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered at PS Sadar Kaithal vide FIR No.232 dated 19.10.2007. It was further alleged by petitioner that as a counter blast, respondent wife had registered a case under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC against petitioner and his family members in Police Station Alewa. It was also alleged by the petitioner that he filed a divorce petition against respondent wife. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent knew stitching and embroidery and could maintain herself and her minor children. Petitioner denied that he owed 10 acres of Crl.Rev.No.2476/2010(O&M) 3 agricultural land, a pucca house or plots in the village. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the material available on record dismissed the petition qua respondent wife whereas maintenance @ Rs.700/- per month was granted to each of the minor children. Feeling aggrieved, respondent wife filed a revision petition which was partly allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaithal, as noticed above. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence that respondent wife herself left the company of the petitioner after giving him merciless beatings in connivance with her brothers regarding which an FIR also stands registered at PS Sadar Kaithal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no source of income and on the other hand the respondent is doing the work of stitching and embroidery work and also running a kiryana and bangle shop and thus able to sustain herself and her minor children. It is contended that the impugned order dated 27.7.2010 is based on surmise and conjectures and thus liable to be set aside. The learned revisional court has found that the evidence led by the respondent-wife had gone unrebutted as defence of petitioner- husband was struck off for non-payment of arrears of interim maintenance. Learned Sessions Judge noticed that though from the oral evidence led by petitioners it could not be proved that the monthly income of petitioner-husband was Rs.20,000/-, yet it was held that he Crl.Rev.No.2476/2010(O&M) 4 was having sufficient means to keep and maintain his wife and children. I do not find any fault with this finding of the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner is aggrieved against the grant of maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. to respondent wife as he has not challenged before the revisional court the grant of maintenance @ 700/- per month to three minor children. In my opinion, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the maintenance granted to the respondent wife and her minor children is just and proper and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side. The petitioner being the husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 to 4 is bound to maintain them. No illegality or perversity can be pointed out by the learned counsel in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. 6.10.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge