Criminal Revision No.3059 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3059 of 2010 Date of Decision:17.11.2010 Parmod Singh ......Petitioner Versus Mukesh Devi .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Mukesh Devi-respondent-wife filed the petition for the grant of maintenance against her husband-petitioner-Parmod Singh, invoking the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The District Judge, Family Court accepted the petition and awarded a maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month by virtue of impugned order dated 04.11.2010. 2. The petitioner-husband did not feel satisfied and filed the instant revision petition for setting aside the impugned order. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the revision petition. 4. However, the only celebrated argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband that the amount of maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife by the trial Court was on higher side, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. Criminal Revision No.3059 of 2010 2 5. As is evident from the record, the Judge, Family Court has recorded a finding of fact based on the evidence that the last salary drawn by the petitioner in the month of April 2010 was Rs.22,121/- and he received Rs.14,55,031/- in lieu of his Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, the amount of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-wife cannot possibly be saith to be on the higher side, as urged on behalf of the petitioner-husband. 6. What is not disputed here is that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner-husband and he is morally, socially and legally bound to maintain her. Moreover, the trial Court, having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, granted the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent-wife vide impugned order. The operative part of which is, as under:- “Ex.PW-1/A copy of ration card is produced on record by the petitioner. Ex.PW-1/B is the Identity Card issued by Escorts Limited in favour of respondent. Ex.PW-2A to Ex.PW-2/G show that respondent was employed in Escorts Limited as Team Member. PW- 2 duly proved the employment and VRS record of respondent that respondent received salary in the month of April 2010 as Rs.22,121/- and he received Rs.14,55,031/- of VRS. He also stated that the amount of loans already deducted. Respondent himself stated in his evidence that he has spent rupees five lacs on the marriage of his daughter and rupees three lacs on the marriage of his son, shows that he is well established and earn very well. Respondent paid nothing to petitioner from the amount of VRS and certainly the petitioner is entitled for amount of maintenance as she left uncared. Petitioner stated that she is earning only Rs.2000/- per month by doing tailoring work and she is residing in rented accommodation. The allegation of adultery made first time during evidence and not pleaded in written statement, so statement beyond pleading cannot be considered. From the evidence of the parties, it is duly proved on record that respondent was earning approximately Rs.22,000/- per month till April 2010 and thereafter he took VRS for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I Criminal Revision No.3059 of 2010 3 cannot escape from the irresistible conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay amount of maintenance allowance to the petitioner and it would be reasonable, just and appropriate, if Rs.5,000/- per month is awarded to the petitioner as maintenance allowance from the date of petition. I order accordingly. However, any amount paid by the respondent towards ad-interim maintenance allowance shall be set off.” 7. Meaning thereby, the District Judge, Family Court, has recorded the valid reasons, while awarding maintenance to the respondent-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Such well-articulated order, containing the valid reasons for granting the maintenance, cannot legally be set aside, in these proceedings, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. November 17, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE