Cr.MMO No.63/2009 15.06.2009 Present: Mr. N.S. Shandil, counsel for the petitioner. Cr.MMO No.63/2009 Heard and gone through the record. Respondent is wife of the present petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent have not been having good relations for the last several years. Respondent is presently living with her daughter. She made an application for grant of monthly maintenance allowance, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That application was allowed on 2nd September, 1996 and maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month had been awarded. In June, 2008, respondent filed an application, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking enhancement of maintenance allowance. Learned Judicial Magistrate raised the maintenance allowance from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. Petitioner filed Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge. The same has been dismissed. Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the orders of the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, …2… Cr.MMO No.63/2009 enhancing the maintenance allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/-, from the date of the making of the application, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Admittedly, the present day gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.15,500/-- (approximately). Petitioner is serving in a Government department. Revision of pay of all the Government servants is taking place, based on 5th Punjab Pay Commission Report. Even if it be assumed that the salary of the petitioner would remain Rs.15,500/- only, still the awarding of maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- to the estranged wife cannot be said to be on the higher side, especially when it is told by his own counsel that the petitioner is spending Rs.3,300/- per month on his two minor sons dependent upon him. That means even after spending on the education of his two minor sons, the petitioner is left with Rs.12,000/- a month, approximately. Learned counsel submits that carry home salary of the petitioner is only Rs.8,000/- and odds per month, because he contributes towards GPF. Contribution towards GPF can be reduced by the petitioner. For inflating his Provident Fund, he cannot be allowed to keep his wife half fed and half clad. Another submission made by the learned counsel is that the enhancement should have been ordered only from the date of the passing of the order and not from the date of the application. I find no merit in this submission also. Within six months of the filing of the petition, the learned Judicial Magistrate disposed of the same and thus …3… Cr.MMO No.63/2009 the petitioner is required to pay arrears only for six months. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Cr.MP No.343/2009 Infructuous. June 15, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.