Crl.M.No.M-25099 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-25099 of 2010 Date of decision:September 27,2010. Shivdev Singh ` ..............................Petitioner v Pritam Kaur ................................Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.BD Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioner-husband has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of order dated 12.5.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by learned JMIC Kapurthala granting Rs.2500/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent-wife from the date of the application, was upheld. Briefly noticed the facts of the present case are that respondent wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.PC alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner 51 years Crl.M.No.M-25099 of 2010 2 ago. Out of the said wedlock three sons, who are presently settled in USA and one daughter, who is married, was born. It was alleged by the respondent wife that about 9 years back petitioner developed illicit relations with one Inderjit Kaur who started living with the petitioner. The petitioner and said Inderjit Kaur started torturing the respondent and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home and she is presently living in her parental home. It was further alleged that the matter was also reported to the police but later on withdrawn by the respondent as petitioner turned Inderjit Kaur out of the house. Again the petitioner turned respondent out of the house and presently alleged to be living with said Inderjit Kaur. It was alleged by the respondent that petitioner owns 6 acres of land besides a cash of Rs.10-12 lacs and a monthly income of about Rs.30,000/- from agriculture. With these allegations respondent claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/-. Upon notice of the application, petitioner filed reply admitting the relationship. It was stated that respondent wife was living with him. The allegations regarding illicit relations with Inderjit Kaur were denied and it was stated that she was engaged to look after the household chores. It was further averred that in order to discharge his liability the petitioner had sold his land for Rs.10.45 lacs. The learned JMIC, after hearing both sides granted interim maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month from the date of filing of the Crl.M.No.M-25099 of 2010 3 application. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 12.5.2010. Hence the present petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is 70 years old and not in a position to earn. On the other hand the wife has sufficient funds at her disposal and using the same to make regular visits to USA. It is further submitted that both the Courts below have also failed to take into consideration the fact that the respondent wife is not performing her duties and is living at her matrimonial home, as a result of which the petitioner has to take the service of aforesaid Inderjit Kaur. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not denied. Once the relationship is admitted, petitioner is duty bound to maintain his respondent-wife. Petitioner has not led any evidence to show that respondent-wife has any source of income. Further, it is not disputed that three sons of the respondent are settled abroad and as such there is no one to look after her. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to abdicate his legal and moral duty to maintain his wife. Moreover, the sum of Rs.2500/- granted as interim maintenance, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be on higher side. Crl.M.No.M-25099 of 2010 4 For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. 27.9.2010 (JASWANT SINGH) joshi JUDGE