Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1185 of 2010 Date of decision. 27.04.2010 Balbir Singh s/o Mange Ram r/o village Dhana Ladanpur, Tehsil and District Bhiwani. ....... Petitioner Versus Saraswati w/o Balbir Singh s/o Mange Ram and daughter of Sheo Chand, r/o village Badal, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Rohtak. ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. --- Sham Sunder, J. This revision- petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.2.2010, rendered by the District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, vide which he awarded maintenance allowance @ Rs.1200/- per month in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in favour of Saraswati (now respondent) and against Balbir Singh, (now revision- petitioner). 2. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner and have gone through the documents placed on record. Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2010 --2-- 3. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that, no doubt, the petitioner was married to Saraswati, (respondent). He has further submitted that the petitioner never neglected or refused to maintain the respondent. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also bringing up his two daughters, born from this wedlock. He has further submitted that he is unemployed and, as such, is unable to pay the amount of maintenance @ Rs.1200/- per month. He has further submitted that even the respondent was doing embroidery work as also a Computer Typist, and earning Rs.15000/-to Rs.20,000/- per month. He has further submitted that the judgment, impugned is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, and, as such, the same being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. The marriage, between the parties, was admitted. It was also admitted that, from this wedlock, two children were born. Since the petitioner, subjected the respondent to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, and the FIR under Sections 406, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2010 --3-- got registered by the respondent, against the petitioner, the Court below was right in holding that he neglected and refused to maintain the respondent. If it is assumed, that the petitioner is unemployed, he being an able-bodied person, is legally bound to maintain his legally wedded wife. No material was produced, by the petitioner, in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the respondent was earning Rs.15000/-/20,000/-PM. The Court below, after taking into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the income of the petitioner, even if he is considered to be a Labourer; the financial liabilities of the parties and their status, in the society, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the maintenance allowance, to the tune of Rs.1200/- per month, could be said to be adequate. The mere fact that the petitioner is also bringing up his two daughters in itself, could not be said to be sufficient, that he was not required to maintain his legally wedded wife. The maintenance allowance, granted, in favour of the respondent, and against the petitioner, by the Court below, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be excessive. The judgment of the Court below, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. Crl. Revision No.1185 of 2010 --4-- 5. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. (SHAM SUNDER) April 27, 2010 JUDGE dinesh