The provisions of Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code are intended to provide quick, speedy, and simple relief to the needy and deserve a liberal interpretation to fulfill their social purpose.

Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - The present petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 19.03.2008 (Annexure-P-1), passed the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, and the order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure-P-2), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

2. An application under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code was preferred by respondent No. 2/wife and respondent No. 3/minor son of the petitioner for grant of maintenance. It is an admitted position that Smt. Santosh/respondent No. 2 was married with the petitioner Dharmender on January 22, 1999. Out of the wedlock, a male child was born, who is respondent No. 3, namely, Rohit, who is now ten years old. The mother and son, i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3 are living separately at the matrimonial home of respondent No. 2. The father of respondent No. 2 is employed as a peon with Food Supplies Department and her brother is a dairyman. The birth of the male child took place at the parental home of respondent No. 2 and all the expenses were borne by her father. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that respondent No. 2 has any source of income. Since respondents No. 2 and 3 have no source of income and the petitioner was the person on whom they were dependent, who was not ready to take her as is apparent from the fact that there being strained relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 since the very beginning of the marriage and instead of filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rites, he straight away preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This shows that the petitioner wanted to get rid of respondent No. 2. A decree of divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner, but on an appeal preferred by respondent No. 2/wife in the High Court, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree passed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act stands stayed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court had, vide order dated 19.03.2008 (Annexure-P-2) granted maintenance in favour of respondents 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to each of two respondents from the date of filing of the petition On a revision petition preferred by the petitioner, the said amount of maintenance had been reduced to a sum of Rs. 1,500/- each per month as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of the petition. He challenges these two orders on the ground that the learned Courts below have failed to properly assess the income of the petitioner and without assessment of the income, no maintenance allowance could be granted to respondents No. 2 and 3. He contends that there is no property in the name of the petitioner and the property at the hands of his father could not be taken into consideration by the Courts below for granting maintenance to respondents No. 2 and 3. He on this basis prays that the present petition be allowed and the orders passed by the Courts below be set aside.

4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case.

5. It is true that for grant of maintenance to respondent No. 2/wife and minor son, income of father has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, it has come on record that the petitioner is the sole surviving son of his father, who owns agricultural lands at village Sukhrali in District Gurgaon and village Aurangpur in District Jhajjar. That apart the petitioner has a couple of residential houses, located in Gurgaon City, which have been rented out. The petitioner is residing with his father in a joint family. In the said family, a widow and two children of his brother are also residing. All expenses of the widow of the brother of the petitioner and two minor children is borne out from the joint family income. There is enough evidence on record, which points towards the petitioner bein