CRM No.M-34057 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-34057 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Vijay Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Kanchan Dogra and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present petition and emanating from the record, is that the application for interim maintenance filed by Kanchan Dogra(wife) and her son- Hanumant @ Vishwas-respondents, was accepted and petitioner-Vijay Kumar- husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.1,000/- to his son by the trial Magistrate vide impugned order dated 05.12.2009. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, the petitioner- husband filed the revision petition, which was dismissed as well by the Revisional Court by virtue of impugned order dated 17.03.2010. 3. The petitioner-husband still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the Courts below and filed the present petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this petition. 5. The main celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents by CRM No.M-34057 of 2010 2 the Courts below was on higher side, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that since the matrimonial relationship between the parties is admitted, so, the petitioner-husband is morally, legally and socially duty bound to maintain his wife and son, even being able-bodied person. The trial Court has awarded only Rs.2,000/- to the respondent-wife and Rs.1,000/- to the respondent-son per month, as interim maintenance. The awarded amount cannot possibly termed to be on higher side, as urged on behalf of the petitioner- husband. 7. Therefore, to my mind, the trial Court has rightly awarded the maintenance to the respondents vide impugned order, which was affirmed by the Revisional Court. Such well-articulated orders, containing the valid reasons for granting the interim maintenance, cannot legally be set aside in the second revision petition (which is otherwise barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.) in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned orders. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. November 19, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE CRM No.M-34057 of 2010 3