IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.571 of 2011 Date of decision: 20th April, 2011 Kamaljit Singh … Petitioner Versus Palwinder Kaur … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner was married with Palwinder Kaur and out of their wedlock Simran Preet Kaur – daughter and Jaspreet Singh – son were born. Wife – Palwinder Kaur has instituted an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar had granted interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- per month to the aggrieved wife and to each child. Against that present revision petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though gross salary of the petitioner is Rs.22,973/- per month but carry home salary is Rs.7834/- per month. A perusal of the salary slip (Annexure P-1) reveals that the petitioner is depositing Rs.7,500/- per month in the General Provident Fund. It is a case where the petitioner is saving for his future. Carry-home salary is no criteria to deny maintenance to the children and wife, who are in dire need of funds. A man cannot save for his future to deny education Criminal Revision No.571 of 2011 and the bare necessities of life to his children. If the Court fails to provide maintenance to the children for their basic needs of food, shelter and clothing; they may go to the vagaries or beg for alms. Simply because the petitioner-husband/father is saving for his own future by allowing huge deductions from his salary is not a valid ground to set aside well reasoned order of Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that General Provident Fund is deducted by the employer because petitioner has raised some loan. He has further submitted that petitioner had availed a loan from the bank for which in a connected revision petition, a direction has been issued by the trial Court to deduct the installments against the housing loan so that children are not deprived of roof. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that non- payment of loan can not be construed to deny maintenance as from April, 2010 petitioner has not paid any installment towards the housing loan. Learned counsel has further stated that arrears of maintenance have not been paid and till today petitioner has paid only Rs.2000/-. Taking totality of the circumstances and conduct of the petitioner into consideration, no ground is made out to modify the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 20, 2011 reena/rps 2