CRM No. M 27647 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 27647 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.03.2011 Gurmeet Singh alias Natha Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S P S Tinna, Advocate for the petitioner -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of an order dated 12.05.2009 (P1) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar and order dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur (P2), whereby, the learned courts below have illegally and arbitrarily directed the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance. Respondent No.2 filed an application under 125 Cr.P C in the Court of Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar seeking maintenance. The said application was allowed and the interim maintenance payable to the respondent was assessed as Rs.700/- per month. Feeling aggrieved with the order (P1), the petitioner filed revision petition. The said CRM No. M 27647 of 2009 2 revision petition was also dismissed. Now, the present revision petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well settled proposition of law that second revision is not maintainable under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. The present petition is nothing but a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, it is also well settled that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be entertained in case of miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law. However, no such grounds has been raised which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that any injustice has been caused. In fact, decree of divorce has since been passed. Respondent No. 2 is abled body person. Rs.700/- per month is hardly sufficient to make both ends meet. The amount is not on the higher side. Even, a labourer can earn more than Rs.200/- per day. It is the duly of the petitioner to maintain his divorced wife. In view of the above, there is nothing to show that the order granting maintenance is arbitrary and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or is a misuse of process of law. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 22.03.2011 mohan