In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-30986 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:15.10.2010 Bhupinder Kumar Anand .....Petitioner v. Smt. Rita Anand and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. M.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh and the order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh whereby the revision against the order Annexure-P.1 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Rita Anand (respondent No.1) was solemnized on 10.5.1987. Out of the said marriage the petitioner and respondent No.1 had three children, namely, Mun Mun (Kritika) who was born on 30.1.1988, Gunni (Tushar Anand) who was born on 25.3.1989 and Baby Gudu (Priyanka) who was born on 2.8.1991. On account of matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 since 1992 litigation started between them and criminal cases are also pending. The respondents filed an application for the grant of maintenance Cr. Misc. No.M-30986 of 2010 [2] to them and the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide order dated 20.5.1994 awarded maintenance @ Rs.300/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.200/- to each of respondents No.2 to 4. The said amount being quite meager the respondents filed a petition on 19.9.2005 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. It was submitted that the petitioner was man of resources. He was running a Chemist shop in Sector 35, Chandigarh; besides, he owns 10 Marlas house in Sector 18, Chandigarh. He was earning Rs.40,000/- per month as rental income. The respondents No.2 to 4 were school going children and they needed Rs.8600/- per month for the educational purposes; besides Rs.5,000/- per month for their other necessities. The petitioner on notice contested the petition and took the stand that he has very limited source of income and the respondents had left the petitioner in the year 1992 without any sufficient cause. Despite that a sum of Rs.500/- was awarded to the respondents vide order 20.5.1994. The respondents did not ask the petitioner for maintenance upto 2004 which implied that they were sufficiently equipped to maintain themselves. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure-P.1) allowed the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.1250/- per month to each of the respondents i.e. total of Rs.5,000/- per month subject to entitlement as per law from the date of filing the application. The petitioner aggrieved against the same filed a revision petition which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure-P.2). It was observed that there was no illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Cr. Misc. No.M-30986 of 2010 [3] has no means to maintain the respondents. A reference has been made to the balance sheet ending 31.3.2005, the list of sundry creditors as on 31.3.2005 and also closing balance as on 31.3.2005 of the partners Mohinder Kumar and Tej Sarup; besides, it is submitted that respondents No.2 to 4, in any case, have attained majority and, therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to them. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel, I find no merit in the same. The petitioner is an able- bodied man and it is expected that an able-bodied man can maintain his wife and children. The petitioner is to pay Rs.5,000/- per month for his wife and three children. The same in the facts and circumstances is not unreasonable. The balance-sheet, list of sundry creditors and the partners capital account which has now been placed on record are not such documents from which it can be said that the petitioner has no means. It is submitted that the petitioner is an employee in M/s Manak Chand Tej Sarup and was receiving an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in her order dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure- P.1) in respect to the firm M/s Manak Chand Tej Sarup has observed that the petitioner is a co-sharer in the business being run by his father and brother in the form of a Chemist shop and that the petitioner had projected himself to be an employee under the partnership firm of his father and brother. He had failed to prove the same. It was noticed that Mohinder Kumar, brother of the petitioner, who appeared as RW-2 admitted in clear terms that the petitioner was entitled to 1/3rd share of the income of the firm under the name and style M/s Manak Chand Tej Sarup. He had admitted Cr. Misc. No.M-30986 of 2010 [4] that total turnover of the firm for the last year was around Rs.10/11 Lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the balance sheet of M/s Manak Chand Tej Sarup was not taken into account in which there is a profit of about Rs.1,71,495.30 and the turnover is about Rs.18,31,449/-, however, it is to be divided amongst three partners. However, in my view, it is not of much consequence in view of the clear stand of Mohinder Kumar, brother of the petitioner that the total turnover of the firm last year was Rs.10/11 Lacs. It is submitted that Rs.1,71,495/- if divided in three parts works out to Rs.4,764/- per month. This analogy is quite improper as a Chemist shop which is running in Chandigarh must be getting much higher profits. As regards respondents No.2 to 4 attaining the age of majority, the same was not subject matter of the impugned order. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is not to go into the same and the petitioner may avail his other remedies, if so advised in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, the two Courts below having consistently held the maintenance awarded to be adequate, no ground for interference is made out and the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. October 15, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*