IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31203 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : November 06, 2009. Smt. Anuradha ...... Petitioners. Versus. Sandeep Kumar ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in Criminal Revision No. 40 of 2008, which revision petition preferred by respondent (husband) against order dated 13.05.2008 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide which maintenance amount, which was to be paid to the petitioner, was assessed as Rs. 2,500 per month. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent (husband) is running a reputed sweet shop and has a share of 12 acres in agricultural land. She further contends that a meager amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month, which has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is not enough for survival. She on this basis contends that order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, cannot be sustained. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Criminal Misc. No. M-31203 of 2009. Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, as also order dated 13.05.2008 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandher, while deciding application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., preferred by the petitioner, had assessed the income of respondent (husband) as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Out of this income, maintenance of an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month was granted to the petitioner. The revision petition preferred by respondent (husband) against the said order was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while considering the factum that the income of respondent (husband) was assessed as Rs. 4,000/- per month. Apart from his own expenses, he has old parents to support and maintain and also has to take care of the relatives, especially married sisters, who have to visit parental house. On taking into consideration these aspects, learned revisional court had reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- per month to Rs. 1,500/- per month, which is fully justified. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that respondent (husband) is running a reputed sweet shop and is a shareholder of agricultural land, had not been believed by the learned Trial Court, and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the income of respondent (husband) is more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. Finding no merits in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 06, 2009. sjks. -2-