Criminal Misc. No.64785-M of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.64785-M of 2006 Date of decision : 9.9.2008 Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Surjit Kaur and others ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioners None for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner before this court is estranged husband of respondent no.1 Mst. Surjit Kaur and father of respondents no. 2 and 3 who are minor daughters of the petitioner and the respondent no.1. On a plea filed by respondents under Section 125 of the Cr,P.C., the learned Trial Magistrate awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.400/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3. The maintenance was ordered to be payable with effect from the date of the application. It was further ordered that the respondents no. 2 and 3 would be entitled to maintenance allowance till they attain majority. Respondent filed a revision petition against the impugned order and applied for the enhancement of the amount of maintenance. The plea found favour with the Additional Sessions Criminal Misc. No.64785-M of 2006 -2- **** Judge, Amritsar who ordered that the maintenance payable to respondent no. 1 would be at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month and that respondents no. 2 and 3 shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1200/- each per month. It reiterated that the maintenance amount shall be payable with effect from the date of the application. Petitioner-husband has a grievance with regard to the enhancement aforementioned. I have heard Shri G.S.Sandhawalia, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. None entered appearance on behalf of the respondents to make a presentation. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, at the very out set, points out that the impugned order on point of enhancement (Annexure P-1) suffers from the vice of having omitted to notice the fact that the respondents are putting up on the ground floor of a house belonging to the petitioner only and he himself is occupation of the first floor thereof. In support of the averment, the learned counsel invites the attention of this Court to the following finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate:- “Admittedly, the respondent is residing on the upper portion of the house whereas petitioners are residing on the ground floor of the same house.” The plea raised thereby is that certain amount of dilution on point of quantification of maintenance would be called for in the circumstances of the case. Criminal Misc. No.64785-M of 2006 -3- **** Learned counsel for the petitioner, then, argues that the petitioner had joined the Radha Swami sect and has entrusted his goldsmith business to his son Baldev Singh (non-respondent but concededly a major child of petitioner and respondent no.1). The plea raised thereby is that the petitioner does not have anything to do with the worldly things and has no spare income. Insofar as the former facet of the plea is concerned, it is neither here nor here. It cannot be argued, as a general proposition of law, that the follower of the indicated sect would cease to have any earning capacity or would, infact, cease to earn. There is no document on record to prove that the petitioner had handed over his goldsmith business to his son Baldev Singh. A suggestion was put to respondent No.1 ( in the course of her statement that the shop where Baldev Singh is doing his business as a goldsmith had been built by the petitioner and that he only had paid for the material lying therein). She denied the suggestion as incorrect. Baldev Singh appeared as AW-2 and testified on 'oath', in the course of cross- examination, that “I am doing my separate work of goldsmith for the last three years”. He did, however, concede that “this site/place was given to my by Lakhwinder Singh”. There is no evidence to prove otherwise that the petitioner has ceased to run his gold smith business. There is, however, force in the plea on behalf of the petitioner that the amount awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is on excessive side. There is no documented Criminal Misc. No.64785-M of 2006 -4- **** evidence to prove the earning capacity of the petitioner. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.1 is far from easy. It is in the statement of Baldev Singh that he hands over his income to respondent no.1. The parties are facing each other in as many as five cases. Apart from the evidence adduced at the trial, the respondents did not adduce any additional evidence before the learned revisional Court to justify enhancement of the maintenance allowance. Needless to reiterate, an able bodied husband is legally duty bound to maintain his resource-less wife who has no means of sustenance to maintain herself and her children from the lions of her husband. In the present case, there is no proof on record that respondent no.1 has any earning capacity. In the circumstances of the case, it is deemed expedient to order that the respondent wife shall be entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month, respondent no.3 who is proved on record to be a diabetic requiring frequent medication would be entitled to Rs.800/- per month; while respondent no.2 would be entitled to a sum of Rs.600/- per month only. The petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly with the modifications afore-mentioned. September 09, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE