Civil Revision No. 3904 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3904 of 2011 Date of Decision: 7.7.2011 Pawan Kumar …Petitioner Versus Mithilesh Raghav …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Hardial Singh Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present revision petition, the order dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, has been assailed whereby the aggrieved wife has been awarded maintenance of ` 2,000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an amount of ` 2,500 awarded as litigation expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the wife has herself deserted the petitioner, therefore, she cannot be granted any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment (Annexure P2) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, wherein it is held that the respondent-wife has deserted the petitioner. A perusal of the judgment (Annexure P2) reveals that an ex parte decree of Civil Revision No. 3904 of 2011 2 divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Ravi Kumar v. Santosh Kumari' 1997(3) RCR (Criminal) 3 has held that where a wife withdraws from the society of her husband without reasonable and sufficient cause and there is a finding to this effect that she has deserted her husband, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, at the same time, it was clarified in Ravi Kumar's case (supra) that an ex parte decree on the ground of desertion will not eclipse the rights of the aggrieved wife to claim maintenance. Admittedly, petitioner-husband is getting pension of ` 6,567/- per month. Furthermore, he is an able bodied man and can earn the minimum wages. Thus, it cannot be said that the maintenance of ` 2,000/- per month awarded to his wife is excessive. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 7, 2011 “DK”/rps