CRR No.629 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRR No.629 of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.03.2011 Shri Rahul Sethi ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Varsha Sethi & another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision against the order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad, whereby, an amount of maintenance allowance of ` 3,000/- per month (i.e. ` 1500/- each to both the respondents) along with ` 5,500/- as expenses for litigation has been ordered to be paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while impugning the said judgment, contends that the petitioner is aggrieved with the grant of allowance of ` 3,000/- per month to the respondent-wife and the minor son as the same has been granted from the date of the application which should not have been done as the petitioner had been regularly paying the interim maintenance granted from the date of the application. Secondly, the respondent/complainant-wife did not ask for the litigation expenses but in spite of the same, the Court below had granted ` 5,500/- as expenses. CRR No.629 of 2011 2 Heard. Admittedly, the revision petition has been dismissed. The second revision being barred under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot file the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C under the garb of second revision petition. No doubt, it is well settled proposition of law that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised even if the revision has been dismissed, only to stop the perpatuating of injustice or in case of misuse of the process of law. No such ground has been pointed out in the present case. Hence, the discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case when the revision petition already stands dismissed. Even on merits, there is no case. During the pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the trial Court, the respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the grant of maintenance pendente lite for herself and her son. The High Court vide order dated 24.05.2007 fixed an amount of ` 1500/- as monthly maintenance to be paid by the petitioner for the respondents. Meanwhile, the interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C was allowed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad vide order 10.11.2009 and ` 1000/- to the respondent-wife and ` 1500/- to the minor son was granted. Thereafter, petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was allowed vide order dated 05.03.2011 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Faridabad and the amount granted as interim maintenance to the wife was enhanced by a meager amount of ` 500/- i.e from ` 1000/- to ` 1,500/- while the maintenance granted to the son was not enhanced. Thus, the argument that the same should be only from the date of order and not from application, has no merit as the amount enhanced, while finally adjudicating the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, CRR No.629 of 2011 3 is only ` 500/-. He has been already paying Rs.2500/- from the date of application. Thus, the arrears are only to be calculated at the rate of ` 500/-, which is not much. As per the findings recorded by the Family Courts, Faridabad, the petitioner is a practicing lawyer since 2003 and also doing the business of finance besides receiving rental income. As such, nothing has been pointed out to show that the said order is arbitrary, unfair or in anyway contrary to law. The respondent-wife is granted maintenance for her day to day living. The extra expenditure towards litigation expenses has been rightly granted. There is no ground to interfere with the same. No other ground is raised. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet