Crl.R.No.3327 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.3327 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2010 Paramjit Singh alias Lucky .....Petitioner v. Rajwant Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. Crl.M.No.65588 of 2010 Requests for placing on record Annexure P5. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.65590 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.3327of 2010 (O&M) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 16.9.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which revision petition filed by the present revision petitioner against order dated 17.7.2009 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, in petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was dismissed, whereas the revision petition filed by the respondent-wife was partly allowed and the amount of maintenance pendente lite was enhanced from Rs.750/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned orders passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and learned Crl.R.No.3327 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is only a driver and earning Rs.3500/- per month and that he has to bear the expenses of his son, father and himself and hence it is contended that amount of ad interim maintenance as allowed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, and as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, is on the higher side. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a driver. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, has observed while dismissing his revision petition that even wages of a daily wage labourer in Haryana comes to Rs.4500/- per month now a days. Revision petitioner has failed to show that respondent-wife is earning anything. Hence, in these days of high prices, it cannot be said that awarding of maintenance pendente lite @ Rs.1500/- per month to respondent-wife is, in any way, excessive. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, by enhancing the amount of ad-interim maintenance from Rs.750/- to Rs.1500/- per month, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 16.12.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes/No.