Crl. Misc. No. 21897-M of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 388-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.8.2009 *** Amrik Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Bhupinder Kaur & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is impugning the judgments passed by the Courts below directing him as well as respondents No.2 and 3 to pay maintenance amount to respondent No.1. The trial court fixed the amount of maintenance of respondent No.1, wife of the petitioner and mother of respondents No.2 and 3 @ Rs.2000/- per month from the date of order i.e. 2.9.2006 besides litigation expenses amounting to Rs.3300/-, however, the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala dismissed the revision of the petitioner, but partly allowed that of respondent No.1 and enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of application. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 and have gone through the paper book carefully. The relationship between the parties and their separation is not in dispute. The plea of the petitioner that the wife is having source of income to maintain herself by delivering tuition classes stand falsified from his own admission that his wife is only matriculate and it cannot be expected that a matriculate fellow can teach the students. Finding that the respondent No.1 has no source of income to earn her livelihood and keeping Crl. Misc. No. 21897-M of 2009 2 in view the fact that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial one and have been enacted to prevent neglected wife, children or the parents, as the case may be, from the hands of starvation and vagrancy and from the point of view that the petitioner-husband and their sons i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 are men of means, rightly fixed the maintenance amount of the respondents. It cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 3000/- per month is on higher side, especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living. By dint of the impugned order, only a legal duty, which the petitioner and his sons have prima facie failed to oblige, has been imposed. There is no illegality of perversity in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 18,2009 Jiten