CRM No. M-27173 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-27173 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.4.2009 Chander Kanta ...Petitioner Versus Tirath Parkash ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition seeking enhancement of maintenance granted to the petitioner by the Courts below. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 12th December, 1985. A male child was born to them on 12th September, 1986. A divorce petition was also filed by the husband which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. The instant application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance. The petitioner claimed that respondent is a skilled tailor master and was earning about Rs.15,000/- per month. The respondent, however, refuted this claim and submitted that he was working as a casual labourer on daily wages basis in the shops of tailors. The trial court came to the conclusion that there was nothing on the file to accurately assess the income of the respondent but CRM No. M-27173 of 2008 2 keeping in view totality of facts and circumstances, it could be assessed as Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- per month. The trial court thus enhanced the maintenance to Rs.1000/- per month. This enhancement was granted from the date of filing of the petition. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. However, the respondent husband also filed a revision petition before the same court submitting that maintenance had been assessed on the higher side by the trial court. He sought reduction in the amount of maintenance granted by the trial court. The revisional court, however, dismissed both the revision petitions and held the respondent liable to pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioner. In the present revision petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri on the ground that respondent is a skilled tailor master and was earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to maintenance @ Rs.5000/- per month. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear that there is no evidence on record with regard to the income of the respondent. Both the courts below assessed the income of the husband presuming him to be a casual labourer working on daily wages. Proceeding on this assumption, maintenance of Rs.1000/- was granted to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not call for any CRM No. M-27173 of 2008 3 interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court, particularly when the petitioner has not been able to produce any material to throw some light on the actual earning of the respondent. In my considered view, the courts below have rightly assessed the maintenance to which the petitioner is entitled. There is thus no merit in this revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 27, 2009 'rajpal'