JUDGMENT Mr. A.N Jindal J.: (Oral) - Crl Misc. No 58987 of 2008 In view of the averments mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 120 days in filings the petition is condoned. Crl. Revision No. 2715 of 2008 On an application filed by Master Gaurav Sharma-petitioner against his father Raman Sharma-respondent for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P,C, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar , vide order dated 01.09.2007, fixed the maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. However, on the revision petition preferred by the respondent against the said order, the Additional Session Judge, Amritsar, vide Judgment dated 04.03.2008, while partly accepting the revision petition, reduced the maintenance from Rs.2000/-per month to Rs.800/-per month. 2. The petitioner is the son of respondent. He having been born on 26.01.2002, must be 9 years old by now. Due to the respondent, they parted their ways and the petitioner is residing with his mother since 06.06.2006. The petitioner has stated that the respondent is a Manager of M/s. Airborn Courier Company and is drawing a salary of Rs. 7,000/-plus TA/DA, bonus and commission and total salary drawn by him is Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, he has claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3000/-per month from the respondent. 3. The respondent contested the application. He while admitting the petitioner to be his son, denied all other allegations. He further stated that his wife was of an aggressive nature. Her father used to abuse, insult and misbehave with him and his family members. He admitted that he is employed at Patel Courier Service and his monthly salary is Rs, 2000/- whereas his wife is drawing a salary of Rs.6000/-per month, as she is posted as teacher in Sacred Heart High School. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence at length, granted maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs, 2000/- per month, whereas the Revisional Court while partly accepting the revision petitioner, reduced the maintenance at the rate of Rs, 800/- per month, Argument heard. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is minor son of the respondent and he has been studying in LKG in Bright Land School, opposite Guru Nanak Hospital, street No. 5 Majitha Road, Amritsar, at the time of filing the petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is minor son of the respondent and he has been studying in LKG in Bright Land School, opposite Guru Nanak Hospital, street No. 5 Majitha Road, Amritsar, at the time of filing the petition. He must now be studying at least in 3rd Class and the fee to be paid by him, must have been increased multi-fold. He must be requiring necessary wearing apparel as well as uniform for the school. The requirement of books and stationery for day to day sue is also unavoidable. He also needs food and medicines for his casual ailments. John Shergill (AW-1) and Anil Sharma (AW-2) have disclosed about the expenses to be spent by the petitioner for his studies and for his treatment in the hospital. John Shergill (AW-1) has also proved that the petitioner is a school going child. Usha Sharma (AW-3), mother of the applicant and Mehar Chand (AW-4), maternal grandfather of the petitioner, have also supported the case of the minor petitioner. 6. Much stress has been laid over the question with regard to the income of the respondent. The respondent has stated that he is an employee of Patel Courier Service and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. On the other hand, the petitioner has controverter the argument by stating that the respondent being Manager of the courier agency, is earning Rs. 10.000/- per month. 7. From the admissions, as made by the respondent, one thing is definite that the respondent is an employee of courier agency, but the appears to be concealing true facts while stating that he is drawing a salary of Rs, 2,000/- per month, much below the minimum wages as fixed by the Government. He has not examined any witness from the said agency in order to prove his income, In these days of hiking prices, he could not be expected to receive such a meager salary. Thus, in the absence of any definite evidence with regard to his income of salary certificate issued by his employer, he could be said to be concealing his income. As such, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the petitioner, who says that the respondent has been drawing the salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. Thus, in the absence of any definite evidence with regard to his income of salary certificate issued by his employer, he could be said to be concealing his income. As such, there is no reason to discard the testimony of the petitioner, who says that the respondent has been drawing the salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. 8. The view taken by the first Revisional Court is palpably wrong who considered the salary of the respondent as Rs. 2,000/-per month . 9. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the order dated 01.09.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, being appropriate and reasonable is restored. __________