Crl. Rev. No.1603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Rev. No.1603 of 2010 (O&M) Anurag Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Mini Singh @ Pinky and another ....Respondents 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-9245 of 2010 (O&M) Anurag Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Mini Singh and another ....Respondents Decided on : 12-09-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. C.L.Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J Crl.Misc.no.37616 of 2011 in CRR no. 1603 of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.no.37615 of 2011 in CRR no. 1603 of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant application for recalling the order dated 14.7.2011 is hereby allowed and the revision petition is restored to its original number. CRR no. 1603 and Crl.Misc.No.M-9245 of 2010 This order will dispose of two petitions; one revision petition bearing no.CRR no.1603 of 2010 and other connected petition bearing Crl.Misc.No.M-9245 of 2010. Crl. Rev. No.1603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 2 In Crl.Rev.no.1603 of 2010 the petitioner impugns the order dated 14.10.2009 by which District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad determined the amount of maintenance as Rs.3500/- per month to the respondent-wife and the sum of Rs.2000/- per month for the minor son while disposing of the prayer of the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The amount in question is stated to be excessive on the plea that the petitioner does not has any substantial income. The respondent on the other hand states that the amount is justified in the given set of circumstances. It is not disputed before this Court that the minor son is now with the petitioner, therefore, the only limited question that has to be determined in the instant proceedings is whether the amount of Rs.3500/- per month determined by the Family Court, Faridabad as being the maintenance payable under Section 125 Cr.P.C is excessive or not. The petitioner is a science graduate and has acquired the degree of Law and is stated to be practicing at Patiala House Courts. In support of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has further been stated before this Court that the petitioner is no longer practicing law but is making use of qualification of M.Sc(Mathematics) by taking home tuitions and also by taking up an assignment of a teacher. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for future he is willing to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month but for the period determined by the Court i.e the period for which the application remained pending the amount may be waived off. The petitioner by way of a separate petition bearing no. Crl.Misc.No.M-9245 of 2010 has questioned the order of the Executing Crl. Rev. No.1603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 3 Court by which his warrants of arrest were issued on the very first date when the execution was taken note of by the said Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly stated that this procedure by way of coercive process could not have been adopted by the Court but has pleaded that in the totality of the circumstances the petitioner is required to pay the amount of maintenance to the respondent-wife and he cannot escape the liability when the amount so determined is not so excessive or oppressive. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition no.1603 of 2010 directed against the order dated 14.10.2009 is without any merit. The petitioner is substantially well qualified having a degree of M.Sc (Mathematics) and Law to his credit and is thus adequately equipped to earn his livelihood. He is also said to have been paying income tax on an amount of Rs.36,000/- per annum which indicates that he has means of income. One of the prime considerations under Section 125 Cr.P.C is that the amount which is to be determined should be determined by keeping in view the social status of the parties, the earning capability and the fact that it has to be just and sufficient in the given set of circumstances. Where there is no adequate material available before the Court then it has to determine such an amount on the basis of some reasoning which may be bordered on guess work. In the instant case, the Court has applied both the mechanism by understanding that the petitioner being a well qualified person having means of income and then hazarding a guess that the minimum wage of a workman is Rs.3510/- p.m then the petitioner ought to have been able to provide Crl. Rev. No.1603 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case 4 atleast this amount which is based on a fundamental index of sustenance. Having regard to the aforesaid, when the Court by virtue of the impugned order has not awarded an excessive amount to the respondent but has confined itself to the parameters of bare sustenance, I am of the considered opinion that the plea raised by the petitioner is totally mis-conceived and hence the petition bearing no. 1603 of 2010 is dismissed. In so far as, Crl.Misc.No.M- 9245 of 2010 is concerned, the Court is also of the opinion that in its anxiety to get the amount recovered the Court has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by resorting to coercive process. Therefore, the order dated 3.3.2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Executing Court for proceeding in accordance with law. It is noticed that the petitioner during the course of proceedings had deposited a sum of Rs. 75000/- plus Rs.25000/- on the strength of the interim orders given by this Court which shall be taken note of by the Executing Court while determining the proceedings. Hence, Crl.Misc.No.M- 9245 of 2010 stands disposed of. September 12, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge