Crl. Misc. No. M-5875 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-5875 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.04.2011 Yunus ..........Petitioner Versus Mehram ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Yunus for quashing of order dated 10.5.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, in case No. 10/24.2.2009 as well as order dated 8.1.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have passed the impugned orders contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and without taking into consideration the income of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that respondent-wife left her matrimonial house without informing the petitioner and after that she did not return to her matrimonial house. The petitioner is also having other wife and from her he is having six children and the maintenance granted by both the Courts below is on the higher side. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the order passed by both the Courts Crl. Misc. No. M-5875 of 2011 (O&M) (2) below. Admittedly the petitioner was married to respondent and as per case of the respondent she was not treated nicely by the petitioner and she left her matrimonial house as there was demand of dowry. The respondent is not having any source of income and an amount of ` 900/- per month was granted as interim maintenance by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh vide its order dated 10.5.2010. Against the said order, revision was filed by the petitioner before Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, which was dismissed and order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh was upheld. Order of Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh has been challenged only on the ground that interim maintenance is on the excessive side and the petitioner is having no source of income. A perusal of impugned orders shows that there is nothing wrong in granting ` 900/- as interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.. Admittedly, respondent- wife is not having any source of income, whereas, the petitioner is young and well bodied person, who is supposed to maintain his wife. As per provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C., a wife who is not having any source of income has a right to claim maintenance from her husband. Moreover, it is not a case of the petitioner that the respondent-wife left her matrimonial house without any sufficient reason. Reasons are there as she has been harassed and demand of dowry was also there. Moreover, all these allegations is a matter of evidence, which can be seen at the time of trial. The present petition is with regard to grant of interim maintenance and now-a-days an amount of Rs.900/- cannot be said on the excessive side. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. April 25, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-5875 of 2011 (O&M) (3)