CRM NO. M-36907 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-36907 OF 2011 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 07.12.2011 Anil Kumar ...Petitioner versus Kalpana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 21.10.2011(Annexure P-1) passed by Shri A. K. Singh Panwar, Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide which the revision petition preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Shri Amarjeet Singh, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul granting interim maintenance to the wife and minor son, was dismissed. Kalpana-wife and Anmol-minor son filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance. The learned trial Court, after going through the records, allowed the application and granted an amount of ` 1200/- per month to the wife and ` 800/- to the minor son, vide order dated 15.12.2010. CRM NO. M-36907 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- Feeling dissatisfied with the said order dated 15.12.2010, the petitioner filed revision petition which was heard by Shri A. K. Singh Panwar, Sessions Judge, Narnaul and vide order dated 21.10.2011, the revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul vide which interim maintenance has been granted to the wife and minor son and order dated 21.10.2011 vide which the revision petition preferred by the present petitioner has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is dependent upon his father, whereas the wife of petitioner is a Graduate and Diploma holder in Fine Arts. She is imparting tuitions and earning ` 15,000/- per month. I have considered the said submissions. The petitioner is an abled body person. There is nothing on the file that Kalpana has any source of income. He is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife and minor son. The amount of maintenance cannot be excessive. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below, which does not call for any interference. Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. DECEMBER 07, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE