KUMARI SALON Vs. SURJIT KUMAR RATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which a prayer has been made to revise the order dated 24. 8. 1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh vide which he awarded maintenance of Rs. 200/-per month to the petitioner Kumari Saloni minor daughter of Smt. Kusamlata as well as Surjit Kumar Ratti-respondent. Marriage was solemnised between Smt. Kusamlata mother of the petitioner and Surjit Kumar Ratti-respondent on 26. 8. 1982 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After discussing the whole evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh held that both the mother as well as father are in service and thus, are equally liable to support and maintain the petitioner and it was under these circumstances that order of payment of Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance to the child Kumari Saloni was passed. It has been stated in the petition that amount of maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate is on a very lower side.

(2.) THOUGH according to the averments made in the petition, it is stated that Surjit Kumar Ratti father of Kumari Saloni-petitioner is earning about Rs. 3500/- per month as salary and receiving rent of Rs. 6000/- approximately from three storeyed 10 Marias house in Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. Despite this, Surjit Kumar Ratti-respondent is deriving income from 10 Acres of land which he owns at Bharowal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, but the learned Magistrate has arrived at a conclusion that Surjit Kumar Ratti father of the girl is drawing more than Rs. 2,000/- per month as his salary which is clear from the Income Tax Statement (Annexure P-l ). I do not want to go into the question as to whether respondent-Surjit Kumar Ratti has got more income than Rs. 2,000/- per month. I take it on the basis of the conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate that the salary of the respondent is Rs. 2,000/- per month.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has neither chosen to file written statement nor has disputed the above averments at the time of arguments. He, has, however, filed an application (Cr. M. 12285 /1994) to contend that the present revision petition is not maintainable being barred by limitation. The learned Counsel loses sight of the fact that the application (Cr. M. No. 3746/1994) filed by the petitioner stands already allowed vide order dated 9. 5. 1994 and the delay in filing the present revision petition has been condoned.