Sukhdev Raj Sharma vs Kanchan Bala

Bakshish Kaur, J.—The challenge in this criminal revision is to the impugned judgment dated June 15,1999 vide which Sukhdev Raj, petitioner, has been directed to pay Rs. 500/ - as maintenance to his wife Kanchan Bala.

The marriage of the parties was solemnized on February 19, 1988. Kanchan Bala moved an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. in the year 1991 seeking maintenance from her husband on the ground that he has neglected and refused to maintain her without any reasonable justification. She does not own any movable or immovable property nor she has got any source of livelihood whereas Sukhdev Raj is ASI in the Police Department and he is drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Therefore, she may be allowed Rs. 1,000/- maintenance per month.

The application was resisted by the husband but admitted the factum of marriage with the respondent-Kanchan Bala. According to him, his monthly salary is Rs. 1,600/- per month and he has also to look-after his minor son from his first wife. In fact, the applicant is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by doing the business of selling wool and knitting work, which is sufficient to maintain herself.

The claim of the applicant-Kanchan Bala u/s 125, Cr.P.C was not accepted by the learned Additional Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar, who dismissed the application on May 27,1996. Aggrieved by that order, she preferred revision which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. She was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court with this criminal revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Mr. M.S. Dhillon, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the evidence brought on record which taken into consideration by the learned Judicial Magistrate, regarding income of Kanchan Bala, needs to be accepted. She is an able-bodied person and she is doing knitting work. Therefore, she has sufficient means to maintain herself whereas the petitioner who is getting meagre salary has to support his minor son from the first wife besides maintain himself. Much stress was also laid on her Savings Account R. 4/2, 4/3, 4/4 to support his contention that these deposits go a long way to show that she has got sufficient means to maintain herself.

The amount in the saving accounts of the respondent should not stand in her way for claiming maintenance for herself because the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order has specifically mentioned that the money has come on account of death-cum-retirement benefit of her brother Manohar Lal, who was a bank employee. Thus/ it cannot be said that she has sufficient means to maintain herself. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In fact, he has rightly, in a correct manner, assessed the case of the parties on the strength of evidence brought on the record.

In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition. The same stands dismissed.