Criminal Revision No.2249 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2249 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 24, 2009 Kulvinder Singh ...........Petitioner Versus Manjeet Kaur ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. Respondent-Manjit Kaur, wife of the petitioner-Kulvinder Singh moved a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) seeking maintenance. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 2.7.1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Faridabad and she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs.2000/- per month on account of amendment in the Code. The said application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Faridabad vide order dated 1.9.2005. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred the revision petition and the same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 23.5.2008 and the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.1500/-. Hence, the husband-Kulvinder Singh has filed the present revision petition. Criminal Revision No.2249 of 2008 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge Faridabad had erred in enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month. In fact, the respondent is residing in the house belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner is also maintaining the child. Petitioner is unemployed now-a- days and it is not possible for him to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent. Petitioner had got married to respondent on 30.9.1981 and they were blessed with a son. However, thereafter, the petitioner refused to maintain the respondent and, hence, she filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. A provision has been incorporated in the Code by way of Section 125 to serve a social object and protect the deserted wives from destitution and vagrancy. The provision is remedial rather than punitive. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad has observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the respondent was capable of maintaining herself. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly assumed the income of the petitioner as Rs.5000/- as a skilled labour is expected to earn this much now-a-days. The amount of maintenance allowed to respondent at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (Sabina) Judge April 24, 2009 arya Criminal Revision No.2249 of 2008 3