CRM No. M- 35658 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M- 35658 of 2010 Date of decision : 08.03.2011 Rajesh Bharti ...Petitioner versus Smt Bimla Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Vishvanath Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Rajesh Bharti-petitioner- husband (for brevity “petitioner-husband”) was solemnized on 13.04.2000 with Smt Bimla Devi-respondent-wife (for short “respondent-wife”), according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ambala Cantt. Sufficient dowry articles were stated to have been given by her parents but petitioner-husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles. Thereafter, she was tortured, harassed by the petitioner-husband and his family members for not bringing the sufficient dowry. Ultimately, she was turned out of her matrimonial home by them. 2. In order to save her from starvation, respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner-husband for the grant of maintenance allowance to her to the tune of ` 5000/- per month, inter alia, pleading that as she has no independent source of income and unable to maintain herself, therefore, she was living on the mercy of her parents, whereas petitioner- husband is able-bodied person, employed as technician in Railway Department and is earning ` 12,000/- per month. According to respondent-wife, petitioner-husband CRM No. M- 35658 of 2010 -2- has sufficient means of earnings but he has neglected and refused to maintain her, without any reasonable cause. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, respondent- wife sought the maintenance of ` 5000/- per month from the petitioner-husband, in the manner depicted herein above. 3. The petitioner-husband contested the claim of the respondent-wife but admitted the factum of marriage. He admitted that he is an employee of the Railway Department but termed his salary as ` 3,275/- per month.It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting respondent has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 4. During the course of hearing of the main petition, the petitioner- husband was directed to pay the interim maintenance. As the petitioner has neither paid the amount of interim maintenance nor appeared in the Court, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against him, vide order dated 30-04-2008 by the trial Court. 5. The trial Magistrate, after taking into consideration the ex parte evidence on record, partly accepted the prayer of the respondent-wife and directed the petitioner-husband to pay her a sum of ` 1500/- per month, as maintenance allowance from the date of order, by means of impugned order dated 10.01.2009 (Annexure P2). 6. Although, the petitioner-husband did not challenge the impugned order but respondent-wife still aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure P2),filed the revision petition before Sessions Judge. The order (Annexure P2) was modified to the extent that maintenance was allowed from the date of the petition (instead of date of order) by the revisional Court, by way of impugned order dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P3). Even the petitioner-husband did not contest the revision petition filed by the respondent- wife 7. Instead of paying the maintenance amount or approaching the trial Court, the petitioner-husband straightway preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned order (Annexure P3), invoking the provisions of Section CRM No. M- 35658 of 2010 -3- 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 9. What is not disputed here, is that petitioner-husband has neither paid interim maintenance nor contested the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C and ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. Having completed all the codal- formalities, the trial Magistrate partly accepted the petition for maintenance of respondent-wife and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of ` 1500/- per month, by way of impugned order (Annexure P2). Above all, as the petitioner has not filed any revision petition against the impugned order (Annexure P2) in the Court of Sessions Judge, therefore, the present petition directly filed by him, under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not legally maintainable on his behalf. 10. Moreover, as is evident from the record that petitioner-husband was employed as Technician Gr-III in Railway Department and his gross salary was ` 6108/- per month as per salary slip (Ex PW2/A), although the respondent-wife claimed monthly income of her husband from all sources is ` 12000/- per month. She has also examined her father as PW2 in order to substantiate her case. 11. As indicated earlier, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the ex parte evidence on record, directed the petitioner-husband to pay the sum of ` 1500/- per month to respondent-wife from the date of order. The revisional Court modified the order (Annexure P2) of Magistrate only to the extent that maintenance was allowed from the date of the petition (instead of date of order), by virtue of impugned order dated 03.07.2009 (Annexure P3). 12. Ex-facie, the solitary argument of learned counsel that since the revisional Court did not record any cogent reasons for awarding the maintenance amount from the date of petition, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P3) is illegal, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 13. As perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P3) would reveal that CRM No. M- 35658 of 2010 -4- revisional Court has, inter alia, recorded the following valid reasons for affixing the maintenance amount from the date of petition:- “Keeping in view the fact that learned Trial Court had already allowed interim maintenance from the date of application and Higher Court enhanced interim maintenance again from the date of petition. There was no reason to finally allow maintenance from the date of order”. Therefore, the contrary argument of learned counsel for the petitioner 'stricto sensu' liable to be and is repelled and the impugned order (Annexure P3) deserve to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 08, 2011 G.Arora