Crl. Revision No.977 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.977 of 2010 Date of Decision : 05.01.2011 Smt. Darshna & another .......... petitioners Versus Surender Pal Sharma ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present : Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate for Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the respondent. **** RITU BAHRI, J. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.2.2010 whereby the learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani granted a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the petitioners. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent / husband. Petitioner Smt. Darshna was married to Surender Pal Sharma. One boy namely Ashwani-petitioner No.2 was born to the couple. Respondent is serving in the Army. In reply, the respondent pleaded that the petitioners are Crl. Revision No.977 of 2010 -2- living at his parental house. Further petitioner is in possession of 3½ acres of agricultural land, which was falling in share of the respondent vide compromise dated 3.5.2006. The respondent / husband is drawing pension of Rs. 5282/- per month and has also received a sum of Rs. 5,39,312/- at the time of his retirement. Maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month has been fixed by the learned Family Court taking into account that the petitioner is in possession of 3 ½ acres of agricultural land and drawing pension of Rs. 5282/- per month. In revision, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the maintenance granted by the learned Family Court at the rate of Rs. 2000/- is very meager and the petitioner can not sustain herself in Rs. 2000/-. Mr. S.N. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners are living at his parental house and she is in possession of 3½ acres of agricultural land, which was falling in share of the respondent vide compromise dated 3.5.2006. The respondent is a pensioner therefore, a sum Rs. 2000/- has been rightly calculated from his pension amount to be paid as maintenance. Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to dispute this factual aspect. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount granted at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month has been rightly worked out by the learned Family court and requires Crl. Revision No.977 of 2010 -3- no interference by this Court. Criminal revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. 05.01.2011 (RITU BAHRI) 'sp' JUDGE