Criminal Misc.No.M-14674 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.52524 of 2011 and Criminal Misc. No. M-14674 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 27, 2011 Birender ... Petitioner Versus Smt.Parveen and another ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge herein is to the order dated April 12th, 2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, whereby, application filed by respondents for grant of maintenance was allowed and respondents, wife and minor son, were granted Rs.1500/- and Rs.500/- per month, respectively, as maintenance on an application filed by them under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated November 12th, 2010 modifying the direction to pay maintenance from the date of appearance of the petitioner and not from the date of filing of the petition. 2. Parveen-respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C') to seek maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor son Navneet – respondent No.2. It was pleaded by her that she was married with petitioner on April 03rd, 2000. Her husband is an agriculturist and also having a dairy. He is earning about Rs.10,000/- per month. She has no source of income to maintain herself and the minor son. 3. Petitioner filed reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was pleaded by him that he is unemployed and has no source of income. Hence, the petitioner has no means to pay maintenance to his wife and son. Criminal Misc.No.M-14674 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] 4. This Court does not concur with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Now-a-days, even a labourer can earn Rs.5000/- per month. There is nothing on record to show that he is unfit to work. The husband being able bodied has the potential to earn and to fulfill his duty towards his wife and minor son. 5. In view of this, the amount of maintenance fixed by the courts below does not require interference, it being just and reasonable. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are proper and justified. No interference is called for. September 26, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE