Crl.Rev.No. 86 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 86 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 4.8.2011 Ram Phal ......Petitioner Versus Bharpai Devi and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ajit Sihag, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Bharpai Devi had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3. The Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 19.10.2009 allowed the interim maintenance to the extent of ` 750/- per month each from the petitioner and respondent No.2 and 3 to Bharpai Devi. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. The case of respondent No.1-Bharpai Devi, in brief, was that her marriage was solemnized with Baldev Singh. She was the second wife of Baldev Singh, who had died on 6.1.2005. Baldev Singh was owner of 30 killas of land. Respondent No.1 was now Crl.Rev.No. 86 of 2011(O&M) 2 living at the mercy of Raj Pal. Ram Phal and Baljeet Singh had failed to maintain her. Ram Phal-petitioner was working as a teacher in Government Middle School, Payal and was earning ` 25,000/- per month. The petitioner appeared in the case and averred that Bharpai Devi was getting ` 750/- per month as widow pension and she was owner of 23 kanals 15 marlas of land. Baldev Singh was owner of 166 kanals 5 marlas of land and had died on 6.1.2005. Bharpai Devi was step mother of the petitioner and was capable of maintaining herself. Bharpai Devi was residing with Rajpal and was being looked after him. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated in the Code with a view to provide speedy maintenance to the deserted parents. The provision has a social object to achieve. The said provision cannot be said to be punitive and is rather remedial. The purpose of the provision is to protect the deserted parents from vagrancy and destitution. The petitioner is admittedly a teacher and is drawing a salary of ` 25,000/- per month and is owner of 10 acres of agricultural land. Although respondent No.1 is getting widow pension to the extent of ` 750/- per month but this amount cannot be said to be sufficient for her maintenance in these days of high prices. The petitioner is step son of respondent No.1. Vide the impugned order, the petitioner has been held liable to pay ` 750/- per month to his step mother. The other sons of respondent No.1 i.e. Respondent Crl.Rev.No. 86 of 2011(O&M) 3 Nos.2 and 3 have also been directed to pay ` 750/- per month each to their mother. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot be said to be on a higher side. Respondent No.1 is expected to lead a life with dignity. Moreover, the amount in question has been allowed merely as an interim maintenance. No ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2011 anita