Cr.Misc. NO. M12461 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M12461 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION April ,2009 Anant Ram ......PETITIONER VERSUS Jeeto Devi ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr.PK Gupta, Advocate Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the quashing of order dated 25.9.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurushetra and order dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra granting maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent wife from the date of the petition along with Rs.1500/- as litigation expenses in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is not disputed that the parties were married about 30 years ago. Out of the three children, born out of the wedlock, two daughters have already been married and one son had been residing with them. The respondent had levelled allegations against the petitioner that he had married with one Vidya Devi without getting his earlier marriage dissolved. The petitioner had disputed the status of the respondent as his legally wedded wife. However, he has admitted that two daughters, born Cr.Misc. NO. M12461 of 2008 out of their union have been married by him. The petitioner claims that the respondent had been in unauthorized possession of the house, belonging to him, as such she is not entitled to any maintenance. The petitioner further claims that on 14.11.1994 the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent with the intervention of the respectables and relatives in the Panchayat. Since the parties have been residing separately with the mutual consent, the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance. The respondent is a blind lady. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that an important document Ex. RW1/A, which is a compromise between the parties to the effect that the respondent will live separately by mutual consent and would not claim any benefit has been ignored. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute between the parties appears to be regarding a house, which is in possession of the respondent-wife. The husband wants to take the possession of the said house, for which he has also filed a suit for mandatory injunction. Even if it is presumed that Ex.RW1/A would determine the rights of the parties , the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he has not transferred the house to the respondent, as such the prayer of the respondent claiming Rs.800/- per month does not seem to be unreasonable. The scope of interference while exercising the inherent jurisdiction is very meager. I have also considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence has been wrongly dismissed by the courts below. Vide said application, the petitioner sought to place on record an order indicating that Cr.Misc. NO. M12461 of 2008 the respondent wife has been getting a sum of Rs.600/- per month as old age pension. Even if, it is presumed that an old lady is receiving an old age pension of Rs.600/- per month, it will not absolve the petitioner of his liability to pay maintenance to his wife. In view of the above, no ground is made out to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. April ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE