Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1399 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kumar Bansal v. Tripta

2012-10-05

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 31.01.2011, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar (Annexure P-2), whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, as maintenance to the respondents; and order dated 22.10.2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing the appeal of the husband-petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband contends that the petitioner is 7th standard pass and working as a salesman in a cloth shop. He is earning Rs.5,000/- per month and it would not be possible for him to pay the maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent-wife is a qualified teacher and earning sufficiently. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is a man of resources. He has failed to prove on record that the respondent No.1 the wife is working as a teacher. Heard. 4. It has come on record that the petitioner-husband did not lead any evidence to prove that the respondent-wife has sufficient means to maintain herself as well as the children. He has also failed to show that he is not earning enough to maintain the respondents. Even otherwise, the petitioner-husband is legally bound to provide maintenance to her legally-wedded wife and the children born out of the wedlock. The learned Courts below, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, determined the amount of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month, which is most reasonable and adequate amount. In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not open to the husband to take the plea that the maintenance awarded to the wife and children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is on higher side, as reappraisal of evidence is impermissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which in fact is a second revision in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. 5. Therefore, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed.