Crl.R.No.2460 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2460 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 8, 2010 Rajender .....Petitioner v. Smt.Geeta Devi and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 401Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.7.2010, Annexure P-1, passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, vide which Rs.5000/- per month maintenance has been allowed to minor child, Jatin, respondent no.2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. There is also no dispute that wife of present petitioner alongwith her minor child is living separate. Learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, while deciding the petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of both the respondents, i.e., wife and minor child, observed in para nos.26 to 29 as under: “26. Hence, it is also pertinent to mention that the respondent, in his cross-examination, has admitted that his father was owner of 5-6 killas of agricultural land and that he has already expired. Here again the respondent has tried to conceal his income by deposing the fact that he is not aware as to how much share of that land came to his share. 27.Taking into the consideration the act and conduct of the Crl.R.No.2460 of 2010 (O&M) -2- parties and their respective evidence, in my considered opinion, in the present petition there is sufficient evidence to draw an inference that the respondent is an earning hand. In my opinion, it stands proved that he is working as a Lab technician and is also having agricultural land in his name. As per common practice prevailing in the market, every Lab technician earns around Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month and from the agricultural land measuring about 5-6 killas the monthly income at Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- can easily be earned. If the above mentioned assessment is taken into consideration, this inference can safely be drawn that the monthly income of the respondent in no way is less than Rs.14,000/- per month. 28. Since the petitioner no.2 is a minor and the respondent is supposed to bear the burden of bringing up the petitioner no.2, in my opinion, if any maintenance allowance is paid by the respondent to the petitioner no.2, there will no gap in the status and earning capacity of petitioner no.1 and respondent and, therefore, in the given scenario the petitioner no.2 being the minor son of respondent is entitled for maintenance allowance but not the petitioner no.1. 29. In my opinion, in the present petition, it stands proved that the petitioner no.1 has failed to establish that she is unable to maintain herself. As a result of above mentioned observations, the point of determination no.1 is hereby answered according partly in favour of the petitioners.” Hence, the present revision petitioner has himself admitted that his father was owner of 5-6 killas of land and that he has already expired. He also evaded the reply as to how much share of the land came to his share. He is working as a Lab technician and is also having agricultural land in his name. Hence, learned District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, has rightly taken the income of the petitioner as Rs 14,000/- per month. Even if respondent no.1-wife is having income and is able to maintain herself, it is the duty of both the husband and the wife to maintain the minor child. In these days of high prices, awarding maintenance at the rate of Crl.R.No.2460 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Rs.5000/- per month to minor child cannot be said to be, in any way, on the higher side. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order is in any way illegal or erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 8.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge