Crl. Rev. No. 2290 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 2290 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.5.2009 Thana Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Gurmail Kaur @ Sukhjit Kaur ….. Respondent Present: Mrs. Malkiat Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.7.1989 at Mour Patiala. After marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife. They had no child from the marriage. The respondent alleged that she was maltreated by the petitioner on the ground that she was not beautiful and her parents had not given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Efforts were made to compromise the matter which however failed. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) against the petitioner on 2.4.1994. The same was allowed vide order dated 17.8.1994. The petitioner was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/- per month to the respondent. A petition for grant of divorce was also filed by the respondent which was allowed on 3.8.1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala. The respondent thereafter filed an application on 29.8.2005 under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of the maintenance from Rs.400/- per month to Rs.5000/- per month. It Crl. Rev. No. 2290 of 2008 -2- was stated that after the dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on 3.8.1998, the applicant (respondent) moved an application before the Army authorities which had been paying her maintenance at the rate of Rs.520/- per month and the same was received by the respondent. Thereafter, she (respondent) received a letter on 8.11.2004 that the petitioner would be retiring on 30.11.2004 and she would not receive maintenance allowance from 1.12.2004 onwards. It was submitted by the respondent that against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1998, whereby a decree of divorce was granted, the petitioner has filed an appeal in this Court. In the said appeal, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of interim maintenance. The petitioner was vide order dated 19.8.1999 directed to pay an amount of Rs.1150/- per month as maintenance, besides, litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. On the basis of the said order, the Army authorities had enhanced the maintenance allowance of the respondent from Rs.520/- per month to Rs.1540/- per month. It was submitted that the price of the essential commodities had increased and the applicant (respondent) was unable to maintain herself with meager amount of Rs.400/-. The application seeking enhancement of maintenance filed by the respondent was contested by the petitioner. It was stated that the respondent had received maintenance allowance in excess. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala vide order dated 28.3.2007 considered the facts and circumstances and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.400 per month to Rs.2500/- per month. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner assailed the same before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide her order dated 14.12.2007 has dismissed the same. It was contended by the petitioner that he had retired from the Army and he was getting pension of Rs.2200/- per month. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala noticed that no pension record had been proved by the petitioner. Besides, he had retired as Naik in the year 2004 and Crl. Rev. No. 2290 of 2008 -3- therefore, definitely, his pension ought to be more than what he now claimed. In the modest estimate, it was observed that the pension of the petitioner, ought to be Rs.5000/- per month. Besides, he had stated his age to be 40 years, which showed that at the time of his retirement, he was around 35 years old. Therefore, keeping in view his age, it was observed that he must be indulging in some kind of work to earn his livelihood. He must be re-employed somewhere or must be carrying some individual work. Therefore, considering the extent of pension and re-employment of the petitioner, the maintenance enhanced by the trial Court, it was observed, cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. Aggrieved against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Along with the revision petition an application has been filed seeking condonation of 170 days delay in filing the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala has gravely erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner. Besides, in fact both the Courts below have erred in enhancing the maintenance from an amount of Rs.400/- per month to Rs.2500/- per month. It is submitted that the petitioner is getting pension of Rs.2610/- per month. The petitioner himself has remarried and he has two minor children and a wife. Besides, his old parents are also residing with him. All the family members it is submitted are dependent on the pension of the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I find no infirmity with the orders passed by the Courts below. The petitioner was 35 years old at the time of his retirement in year 2004. At present, he is about 40 years of age. Therefore, he can earn his livelihood and provide maintenance to his former wife. The petitioner has not produced any record regarding his pension that is being received by him. He has merely stated that he is getting Rs.2610/- per month. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala did not accept the same and it was observed on modest Crl. Rev. No. 2290 of 2008 -4- estimates that he was getting pension of Rs.5,000/- per month. Besides, it was observed that he must be re-employed somewhere. The fact that he has minor children and has his other wife to look after is no ground or circumstance to deny due maintenance to his former wife. Award of maintenance of Rs.2500/- per month which is to be paid by a former Naik in the Indian Army is not too high. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the revision petition has been dismissed on merit, the application seeking condonation of delay of 170 days in filing the same is only academic. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 6, 2009 amit