CRM No.M-3673 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-3673 of 2010 Date of Decision:19.11.2010 Sunita Rani and another ......Petitioners Versus Parmod Kumar .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Kunal Malwani, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, for the respondent. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Tersenessly, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioners-Sunita Rani(wife) and her son-Vishesh @ Shinu, the trial Magistrate enhanced the maintenance amount to the petitioner-wife to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per month, vide impugned order dated 21.12.2007(Annexure P-2). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order(Annexure P-2), the petitioners- wife and her son filed the revision petition, which was partly accepted and the Revisional Court awarded the amount at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the petitioners as maintenance, by virtue of impugned order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P-5). 3. The petitioners-wife and her son still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-5) and filed the instant petition for further enhancement of the maintenance amount, invoking the provisions of Section 482 CRM No.M-3673 of 2010 2 Cr.P.C. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. The only argument of the learned counsel that the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioners by the Revisional Court is inadequate, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that the Revisional Court has assessed the maintenance amount, taking into consideration the increased pay of the respondent-husband, to the tune of Rs.24,823/-, after implementation of the 6th Pay Commission and awarded Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioners, vide impugned order(Annexure P-5). The operative part of which is, as under:- “Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, status of the parties, rising prices and the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, I am of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the petitioner would be adequate to be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, this revision petition stands allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to each of the petitioners, as maintenance, from the date of application. However, it is made clear that any amount of maintenance, which is being paid to the revision petitioners, under any court proceedings, shall be adjusted towards maintenance fixed in this revision petition.” 7. Meaning thereby, the Revisional Court has recorded the valid reasons, while awarding maintenance to the petitioners under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Such well-articulated orders, containing the valid reasons for enhancing the 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 petitioners in the impugned orders. CRM No.M-3673 of 2010 3 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, 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-3673 of 2010 4