Crl. Misc. No.M-2209 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-2209 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Mohinder ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Lado and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the impugned order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal and order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which, the Courts below granted maintenance of ` 9000/- p.m to the respondents from the date of application. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the respondent- wife was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal on 12.05.2010 and the respondent No.1 and her minor daughter was allowed maintenance for a sum of ` 9000/- from the date of application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision against the impugned order dated 12.05.2010. The same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 04.01.2011. Hence, the present petition. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had filed petition under Section Crl. Misc. No.M-2209 of 2011 2 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance claiming of ` 5000/- p.m. As such, ` 9000/- p.m. maintenance to the respondents from the date of application was arbitrary. It is further contended that no reasons for granting maintenance from the date of application has been mentioned. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Shail Kumari Devi vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak reported as 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 842. Heard. Second Revision Petition is barred under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. It is a well settled proposition of law that second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable except on account of injustice or misuse of process of law. No such argument or ground has been brought to the notice of this Court which may enable this Court to come to the conclusion that any injustice has been caused or whether the order granting maintenance to the wife and the minor child have resulted in any misuse of process of law. Taking up the first argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had only demanded ` 5000/- has no merit, in as much as, the Revisional Court has recorded a finding that the respondents had claimed maintenance @ ` 5000/- p.m for each of the two respondents and the prayer clause was a bona fide clerical mistake. With respect to the second argument that no reason for granting the maintenance from the date of application has been given, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shail Kumari Devi (supra) as relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically held in paras 46 and 47 as under :- “46. Again, maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the Crl. Misc. No.M-2209 of 2011 3 husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance. It is, therefore, open to the Magistrate to award maintenance from the date of application and there is nothing which requires recording of `special reasons’ though he must record reasons as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 354 of the Code in support of the order passed by him. 47. We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application under Section 125 of the code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment, no such requirement can be read in sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.” It is, therefore, evident from the above that no special reasons are required to be given for granting maintenance from the date of application. In the present case, specific order has been passed mentioning that the said maintenance has to be granted from the date of application which all that was required. With respect to the reasons for granting maintenance, there is no infirmity in the order and the observations of the Court below manifestly show justification on the part of the Court in granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Even before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to mention even one reason as to why the maintenance should not have been granted Crl. Misc. No.M-2209 of 2011 4 from the date of the application, especially when, the respondent is admittedly not working and is un-educated and has no other means of maintenance. Thus, ` 9000/- p.m have been granted jointly to the respondent as well as to the minor child from the date of application keeping in mind the following facts which are admitted. (a) The respondent is an un-educated. (b) The respondent has no other means of income. (c) The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in an Engineering College and admittedly his carry home salary alone is ` 25,100/-. Meaning thereby, his total salary is around ` 30,000/-. (d) She has a minor child to look after. In view of the above, it is the incumbent duty of the petitioner to maintain his wife and his minor child. Thus, the amount of Rs.9000/- granted to the respondents is not excessive. The judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court and as relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case titled as Vinod Kumar Arora vs. Smt. Surjit Kaur reported as AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2179(1) does not apply in the facts of the present case. In view of the above, no infirmity can be found in the order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and the order dated 04.01.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal dismissing the revision petition. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet