CRM No. M 14864 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 14864 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.08.2010 Kailash Monga alias Bittu ........ Petitioner Versus Sunita Rani and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Gursewak Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The petitioner was married respondent No. 1 on 11.03.2000 and respondent No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malout. Respondent No. 1 also filed an application for grant of ad-interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malout vide its order dated 28.02.2009 had granted the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1500/- to respondent No. 2 from the date of application till the pendency of the petition besides Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision against the CRM No. M 14864 of 2010 2 aforesaid order in the court of Sessions Judge, Muktsar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar dismissed the same vide judgement dated 03.12.2009. Accordingly, the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed praying for quashing of the aforesaid order and judgement passed by both the Courts below. While challenging the judgement dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar as well as order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the JMIC, Malout, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee of Vegetables Commission Agent and is earning only Rs. 2000/- per month. He is suffering from ailment and spends Rs.500/- per month on his treatment. It was further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner was a Commission Agent, whereas, he was an employee of the Commission Agent. Heard. Respondent-wife had specifically made an averment in her petition which has also been noticed in the order by the trial Court that the petitioner was running a business of Commission Agent in Vegetables and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He had no other liability. While granting the maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent wife and Rs.1500/- to respondent No. 2, the trial Court did not base the same on any such finding as submitted by the learned counsel. In fact, the evidence has yet to be led and the application is still pending. The present relief is against the grant of ad interim maintenance by the trial CRM No. M 14864 of 2010 3 Court. The appellate Court further dismissed the revision against the grant of said maintenance by holding that the petitioner has not denied his capacity to earn and that even a small vegetable vendor earns Rs.5000 to Rs.6000/- per month. Even otherwise, there is no specific denial of the petitioner that he is not a Commission Agent. The revision against the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (JD)-cum-JMIC Malout was dismissed. Second revision is not maintainable. The remedy of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be resorted to in case there is a miscarriage of justice or misuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how there is miscarriage of justice. Respondent No. 1 is the wife and respondent No. 2 is the minor son of the petitioner. It is his legal and moral duty to maintain them. Grant of Rs.3000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs.1500/- per month to respondent No. 2 is neither on the higher side nor excessive. No ground. Dismissed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 26, 2010 mohan