CRM No. M 8132 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 8132 of 2008 Date of decision: 13.10.2010 Ajay Kumar ........ Petitioner Versus Ramesh Rani and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Kr. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manjit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the judgement dated 01.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak as well as the judgement dated 28.02.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- cum-Presiding Officer, Rohtak, vide which the Courts below awarded maintenance allowance of `6000/- to the respondents under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, vide judgement dated CRM No. M 8132 of 2008 2 01.11.2006 allowed the application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the present petitioner to pay maintenance allowance of `6,000/- per month to the respondents i.e. `4,000/- per month to petitioner No. 1 and `2,000/-per month to petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak who dismissed the same, vide judgement dated 28.02.2008, by holding that “the amount awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak was consistent with the income of the respondent and cannot be stated to be on excessive or higher side.” Heard. This is a second revision petition. It has been recorded by both the Courts below that the petitioner is employed in the Central Bank of India, Kharkhoda Branch. His salary certificate for the month of March, 2005, EX.P1, showed that his gross salary was `17,529.38 ps. and his carry home salary was `9,441.38 ps. A deduction of ` 8088/- was being made from his salary on account of loan against festival advance, loan installments against provident fund, towards deposit of provident fund and income tax. Some of these deductions were towards luxuries and some were compulsory deductions. After leaving the deductions against the provident fund, festival advance and soft loan, the Court recorded a finding that the salary of the petitioner was of `15,421.38 ps. Thus, it was held that ` 6000/- towards maintenance of the respondents was not excessive in order to enable them to maintain the standard of living which should be at least consistent with the income of the revisionist. The said income of the petitioner was assessed in the month of CRM No. M 8132 of 2008 3 March, 2005. Now, it is 2010 and certainly his income is bound to have gone up. Thus, `6,000/- as of today is definitely not an excessive amount in view of the income of the petitioner. No ground has been raised which may enable this Court to interfere in the well reasoned judgements passed by both the Courts below. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 13, 2010 mohan