(1.) THE facts leading to this revision petition are that Surjit Kaur (petitioner No 3) was married to Bhura Singh, respondent in 1971. From that marriage two daughters, namely, Virpal Kaur and Murti (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) were born. The respondent is said to have maltreated his wife and turned her out of his house alongwith the two daughters. In August, 1980 Surjit Kaur filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor daughters claiming maintenance from the respondent. At that time Virpal Kaur was aged 7-1/2 years and Murti 1-1/2 years. It was alleged in the petition that Surjit Kaur was unable to maintain herself and the minor daughters and that the respondent was earning about Rs. 1500/-P.M., Surjit Kaur claimed Rs. 300/-P.M. as maintenance for herself and Rs. 150/-P.M. each for the minor daughters.
(2.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot, who heard that case held that the husband had not neglected to keep and maintain his wife Surjit Kaur and her refusal to live with him was not justified. He further held that the minors was living with their mother and the respondent was bound to maintain them. He fixed the earnings of the respondent at not less than Rs. 700/- or Rs. 800/- P. M. as he was a truck-driver. Accordingly he ordered him to pay Rs. 100/- P.M. each to Virpal Kaur and Murti as maintenance from the date of the application.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the above order Surjit Kaur, Virpal Kaur and Murti have filed this revision petition. It may be mentioned here that before me the revision petition so far as Surjit Kaur is concerned was not pressed perhaps on the ground that second revision on her behalf was not maintainable as maintenance was refused to her by both the learned Courts below. The only grievance before me was that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in reducing the maintenance allow by the learned trial Court to Virpal Kaur and Murti.