IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.3234 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.12.2010 Ravi Shanker …. Petitioner Versus Smt. Sunita and others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. Rajender Sorout, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad whereby the interim maintenance at the rate of `2000/- per month has been granted to Smt. Sunita (respondent No.1) and `1000/- per month to Master Harish (respondent No.2) till final disposal of the main petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the maintenance that has been awarded is highly excessive as the petitioner is earning salary of `3,985/- per month only. It is submitted that he is working as a security guard in TRIG Detectives (P) Limited. Besides, respondent No.1 Crl. Revision No.3234 of 2010 [2] Smt. Sunita is graduate and doing computer job and earning about `8,000/- per month. The family of the petitioner, it is submitted, comprises of five members including the parents, brother and sister who are dependent on the income of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner, it is submitted, is bed ridden and under medical treatment. Therefore, the quantum of maintenance is liable to be reduced. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad has only granted interim maintenance to the extent of `3,000/- per month for both the respondents. It was noticed that the petitioner is a T.V. Mechanic and is also working as a security guard and from these two sources he was earning `10,000/- & `5000/- per month respectively. His total income was assessed as `15,000/- per month. The certificate dated 16.11.2010 (Annexure P2) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is after the passing of the impugned order dated 27.8.2010. Therefore, the same is not relevant at this stage and the salary at the time of consideration of the petition for grant of interim maintenance was liable to be taken into account. The subsequent certificate is an after thought. Besides, the fact that the petitioner is working as a T.V. Mechanic has also not been controverted. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering with the impugned order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad Crl. Revision No.3234 of 2010 [3] whereby the maintenance to the extent of `3,000/- per month has been granted to respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 07, 2010 amit