Crl.R.No.2586 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2586 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 20, 2010 Sanjay Kumar @ Saligram .....Petitioner v. Smt.Neelam and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.49446 of 2010 Heard. In view of the grounds taken in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 50 days in filing the present revision is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Crl.M.No.49445 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.2586 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in a petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondents against the present petitioner, vide which present petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month to respondent no.1 and @ Rs.1500/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the petition till further orders so far as respondent no.1 is concerned and till the date of attaining majority by respondent no.2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Crl.R.No.2586 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Admitted facts are that marriage of petitioner was solemnised with respondent no.1 as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies on 18.2.1999. Marriage was consummated and a child, i.e., respondent no.2, was born out of the wedlock. Respondent no.2-child is studying in a public school, i.e., Doon Public School, Sector 3, Ballabgarh. Parties are living separately. No maintenance is being provided by petitioner-husband to respondents. As per deposition of respondent no.1-wife she is having no independent source of income to maintain herself and the minor child. So far as the fact as to whether she is having sufficient cause to live separate from the petitioner-husband is concerned, she has taken the specific plea that she was being harassed on account of dowry by petitioner-husband since the very beginning of marriage and there was demand of motor-cycle and Rs.50,000/- cash and when the said demand could not be met by her parents, she was turned out of the matrimonial home on 10.10.1999, after giving her beatings and since then she alongwith minor child is living separately from the petitioner. Hence, learned Family Court has rightly come to the conclusion that respondent no.1-wife is having sufficient cause to live separate from the petitioner-husband. So far as income of petitioner-husband is concerned, respondent-wife has taken a specific stand that petitioner-husband is running a Screen Printing Press and is earning about Rs.20,000/- per month from the said business. On the other hand, petitioner-husband has taken a very vague plea that he is not doing any work and he is not earning anything and however, when he appeared in a witness box, he has stated that he is only a labourer. Hence, petitioner-husband has concealed the material fact regarding his earnings. Learned District Judge, Family Court, after taking into consideration the educational, social and financial status of the parties, has assumed income of petitioner-husband as Rs.10,000/- per month as he is an able bodied person and experienced enough to earn. By taking the income of present petitioner as Rs.10,000/- per month, learned District Judge, Family Court, allowed maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month to respondent no.1 and @ Rs.1500/- per month to respondent no.2-son, who is studying in a public school. In these days of high prices, even with this meager amount of maintenance, it would be very difficult for respondent no.1-wife to make both ends meet and to bring up the child and to spend on Crl.R.No.2586 of 2010 (O&M) -3- his studies and to meet the expenses of other daily needs. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in this revision petition. The same is, hereby dismissed. 20.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge