Crl. Revision No. 56 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 56 of 2006 Date of decision: 03.09.2008 Fateh Chand Tuteja S/o Ram Lal Tuteja ....Petitioner V/s Poonam and another ....Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL J.(ORAL) The petitioner working as a Scientist in Central Carmel Research Centre Bikaner (Rajasthan) has challenged the order dated 23.05.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 1,000 to 4,000 to both the respondents on account of interim maintenance on an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Sans unessentials, the facts in the background of the case are that Mrs. Poonam and her son Nilaksh moved an application for claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was tried by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar. On the application for interim maintenance, the Court vide order dated 11.09.2003 directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- each Crl. Revision No. 56 of 2006 2 per month to the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge, Hisar vide order dated 23.05.2005 enhanced the maintenance and ordered to pay Rs. 2000 each to the respondents. Heard. The only arguments raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the respondents were entitled to get maintenance yet the court while passing the order of interim maintenance should have taken into consideration the income of the respondents. The other argument raised before me is that though the respondents have pleaded the income of the petitioner as Rs. 20,000/- per month yet the Court while awarding the maintenance considered his income as 30,000/- per month. Having heard to the rival contentions it could be observed that the impugned order sans any illegality. The petitioner himself has placed his salary slip issued by National Research Centre on Camel Bikaner which discloses that after deducting G.P.F., G.L.I.S., Computer Advance, R.C. Contribution, his income comes to Rs. 25,883.00/-P.M.. The said salary slip relates to 12.03.2007. The Court could also take judicial notice of the subsequent events that after the report of the 6th pay Commission, the income of the Central Government employees have been enhanced by 40%. Therefore the Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error while observing the income of the petitioner at Rs. 30,000 per month. As regards the other argument that the income of the respondent has not been taken into consideration it may be observed that the Court at the time of awarding the maintenance was to see the status of the parties. The fabric in which they have been residing; the education of the minor and other Crl. Revision No. 56 of 2006 3 circumstances of the cases. She being educated lady and wife of the scientist could not be supposed to live at Rs. 4,000/- p.m. only in these days when the price index is rising record high. Therefore if she has some source that could also be utilized in her livelihood and that of the minor. Consequently, it would not be unsafe to hold that interim maintenance awarded by the Trial Court is not on higher side. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. 03.09.2008 (A.N. JINDAL) Ajay JUDGE