Criminal Misc. No.M- 12158 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 12158 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 4.5.2009 Harjinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus Sandeep Kaur and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Rajwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Harjinder Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C. for short) seeking quashing of order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Sessions Judge, Mansa, vide which the order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) granting interim maintenance to the respondents was upheld and further for quashing of order dated 24.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) vide which 1/3rd salary of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached. Criminal Misc. No.M- 12158 of 2009(O&M) 2 The petitioner was married to respondent No.1 on 22.11.2001. They were blessed with a son on 18.9.2002. After some time a dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and they started residing separately. Respondent No.2 is in custody of respondent No.1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent No.1, on the other hand, has lodged an FIR under Sections 406/498 IPC. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce and the same is pending. Respondent No.1 moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada vide order dated 24.9.2007 (Annexure P-1) allowed interim maintenance to the respondents. Respondent No.1 was allowed interim maintenance @ Rs.800/- per month, whereas, respondent No.2 was allowed interim maintenance @ Rs.600/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order both the sides filed revision petitions. Vide order dated 21.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), learned Sessions Judge, Mansa allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents and enhanced the maintenance allowed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada . The revision petition filed by the petitioner was, however, dismissed. Respondent No.1 was granted interim maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month, whereas, respondent No.2 was allowed interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month. Since the interim Criminal Misc. No.M- 12158 of 2009(O&M) 3 maintenance was not paid by the petitioner to the respondents, on an application filed by respondent No.1, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada vide order dated 24.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) ordered the attachment of 1/3rd salary of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the interim maintenance amount. The order, vide which 1/3 rd salary of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached, be set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner was married to respondent No.1 in November, 2001 and they were blessed with a son. Now the petitioner and respondent No.1 are residing separately. The petitioner is working as a teacher and as per his salary certificate placed on record before the trial Court, he is getting Rs.10,000/- per month. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents are capable of maintaining themselves. Provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated with a social object. The purpose is to protect the deserted wives and children from vagrancy and destitution. The provision is remedial rather than punitive. Keeping in view the salary of the petitioner, the interim maintenance allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansa cannot be said to be on a higher side especially in these days of high prices. Since the petitioner has failed to make the payment of the interim maintenance, left with no alternative, learned Sub Divisional Criminal Misc. No.M- 12158 of 2009(O&M) 4 Judicial Magistrate, Budhlada has attached 1/3rd salary of the petitioner. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 04, 2009 anita