Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.03.2010 Bahadur Singh son of Sucha Singh, r/o village Ballan Kalan, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Sh. Bahadur Singh son of Sucha Singh and daughter of Gulab Singh; 2. Sukhwinder Kaur daughter of Bahadur Singh son of Sucha Singh; both residents of village Ballan Kalan, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, now residing at village Panaichan, Tehsil and Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. P.S. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 20.02.09, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P1), and, the order dated 08.10.09, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P2), vide which, the respondents, were awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- each, from the date of Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 2 application, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 12.08.77, the respondents, filed an application, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for grant of maintenance. In pursuance of that application, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50/- per month, in favour of Mukhtiar Kaur, whereas, maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20/- per month, in favour of Sukhwinder Kaur, was granted, by the Court concerned, vide order dated 13.12.79. It was stated in the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. that the prices of essential commodities, had increased 40 times after 1979, and, as such, it was not possible, for the respondents, to make their both ends meet with the aforesaid petty amounts. It was further stated that the petitioner, had 14 acres of land, and, was having a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. 3. While contesting the application, the petitioner, stated that his marriage with Mukhtiar Kaur, had been dissolved, by way of decree of divorce, passed by the Court of District Judge, Ropar. It was further stated that Mukhtiar Kaur, was the owner in possession of agricultural land, and, as such, was not entitled to enhancement of any maintenance. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, enhanced maintenance, to the tune of Rs. 500/- each per month, to the respondents, vide order dated 20.02.09. Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 3 5. Feeling aggrieved, a revision-petition, was filed, by the revision-petitioners (now respondents), which was accepted, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, thereby enhancing the maintenance, from Rs. 500/- each per month to Rs. 1000/- each per month. However, it was directed that Sukhwinder Kaur, would be entitled to maintenance, only till the date of her re-marriage. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondents, failed to establish, that there was any change, in the circumstances, resulting into the enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 1000/- per month each. He further submitted that the petitioner, got married, after he was granted divorce, by the District Judge, Ropar, and since then, he was maintaining six family members. He further submitted that the petitioner, is suffering from various ailments, and, has no source of income. He further submitted that the Revisional Court, failed to appreciate, that respondent No. 1, was having sufficient source of income, as she was having agricultural land, in her name, which she inherited from her father, and, as such, she was not entitled to the enhancement of the maintenance allowance. He further submitted that the order impugned, passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 4 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt,the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, while allowing the application, under Section 127 Cr.P.C., enhanced maintenance allowance, to the tune of Rs. 500/- each, in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2, with the rider, that respondent No. 2, would be entitled to receive maintenance, till 20.11.07, the date of her re-marriage. In the revision, the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, after taking into consideration, the income of the petitioner, status of the parties, and their financial condition, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that in these days of spiral high prices, it would not at all be possible, to maintain two souls with a sum of Rs. 500/- each. The Revisional Court, was also right, in coming to the conclusion, that every person requires medical assistance or other necessities of life and even the amount of Rs. 1,000/-, per person, cannot be said to be sufficient, to meet all these requirements. So, under these circumstances, it could not be said, that the Revisional Court, acted illegally, in enhancing the maintenance allowance, to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- each, from Rs. 500/- each, awarded by the trial Court. The orders impugned, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. Criminal Misc. No. M-6689 of 2010 5 M-6689 of 2010, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 11. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 08.03.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE