Sher Singh vs Bhateri

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1992 dated 17.1.1994, awarding a sum of Rs. 300/ per month to the respondents herein.

The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are his sons. The respondents filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani in case No. 314, of 1986 for maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the petitioner who is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 refused and neglected to maintain them. The petitioner admitted that the first respondent is his wife and respondents 2 and 3 are his sons. According to him, he is having another son, Vikram Singh, who is serving in the Army and he has been sending his salary to the first respondent and his wife is also earning from the agricultural land of the petitioner. The house and agricultural land belonging to the petitioner were also taken into possession by the first respondent and that he is getting pension of Rs. 446/ and, therefore, he has no means to pay anything to the respondents.

The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani by his order dated 13.2.1992 dismissed the application filed by the respondents for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents had filed revision petition in the said court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 300/ per month to the respondents towards maintenance.

Aggrieved by the said order awarding maintenance to the respondents, the petitioner filed the above revision petition.

According to the petitioner, he is getting only pension of Rs. 446/ per month as he has retired from Army and is not having income and that his wife is in possession of house and agricultural land and their elder son Vikram Singh, who is serving the Army, has been supporting the respondents and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani awarding maintenance of Rs. 300/ per month to the respondents under section 125, Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside. It is on the other hand contended by learned counsel for the respondents that there is no evidence that the petitioner is getting only a sum of Rs. 446/ and the respondents are not drawing any income out of the house or the agricultural land and the elder son of the petitioner and the first respondent is not contributing anything for the maintenance of the respondents and he has got his own family to support and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly awarded maintenance to the respondents.

The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner as P.W. 1. She deposed that the petitioner is working in Roadways and getting a salary of Rs. 20002500 per month. She further deposed that the land belonging to the petitioner must have been cultivated by some body and she has not been cultivating the same through her brother. She denied that her elder son Vikram Singh is sending money to her. She also denied that she is getting a sum of Rs. 1000/ from the agricultural land.

P.W. 2 is the brother of the first respondent. According to him, the petitioner is employed in Roadways having a scale of pay of Rs. 12002400. He further deposed that the first respondent is not cultivating the land of the petitioner in Nandal. He admitted that the house is in possession of the first respondent.

P.W. 3 is said to be a mediator. His evidence is of not much importance in deciding the matter. The petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1. According to him, he is getting a sum of Rs. 446/ as pension except that he has no other source of income. In the crossexamination, he denied that he is cultivating the land and that his income is Rs. 3000/.

It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner is working in Roadways as a driver and earning as a driver. The petitioner in his evidence has not denied the said fact. Admittedly, the petitioner worked as a driver in the Army before he took retirement from Army, therefore it can safely be taken that he is earning as a driver even according to the petitioner. He is getting a sum of Rs. 446/ as pension and there must be some other income to him as driver in Roadways. Though assertion made by the witnesses of the respondents is that petitioner is now not working as a driver, the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to show that he ceased to work as a driver in Roadways Company.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner having means to maintain the respondents refused to maintain them. Therefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, awarded a sum of Rs. 300/ as maintenance to the respondents.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sons of the petitioner became majors now and, therefore, they are not entitled to claim their maintenance, but there is no evidence before me that the respondents 2 and 3 became majors. If, really they have became majors and the petitioner''s liability to maintain them ceases, it is open to the petitioner to apply before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of the order of maintenance.

Resultantly, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.