Crl.R.No.2293 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2293 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 20, 2010 Bijender Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Sarita .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 5.6.2010, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide which petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent-wife was allowed and maintenance @ Rs.7500/- per month, was awarded to her. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have perused the order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the respondent-wife is living separate from the petitioner. It has been rightly held by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, that the respondent-wife is having justifiable cause for living separate from the petitioner. She has also got lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the petitioner and his family members. She is having no income to maintain herself. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is doing labour work in the land owned by his brother and hence, he is not having sufficient income to pay the maintenance. However, this plea of present revision petitioner has not been accepted by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, and the income of present petitioner has been taken as Rs.20,000/- per month by observing as under:- Crl.R.No.2293 of 2010 (O&M) -2- “30. Taking into consideration the conduct of the respondent vis-a-vis of his witness and the back-ground of the family of the respondent, in my considered opinion, apparently there is an attempt on the part of the respondent to project lesser amount of his income and he has tried to conceal his actual earnings. Since it is proved that the family of the respondent is a landlord family having brick kiln etc., it is far from imagination that the only source of earnings of the respondent is working as a labourer in the fields of his brother. In my considered opinion, in the given circumstances by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be presumed that the monthly income of the respondent is less than Rs.20,000/-.” It has been specifically mentioned in the impugned order that a witness of petitioner, Jag Karan, RW2, has not denied in cross-examination that the family owns 60 acres of agricultural land and that family is also having more than Rs.50,000/- per month income from the brick kiln. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned District Judge, Family Court, that it cannot be believed that respondent-husband is doing labour work in the agricultural fields owned by his brother. Petitioner-husband has much concealed than revealed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 20.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge