Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This petition has been filed by the husband challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court which enhanced the maintenance and awarded maintenance amount more than what was claimed. It was averred that the Revisional Authority could not have awarded an amount which was more than what was claimed and if she was seeking enhancement, she could have claimed the same in a separate petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. which allows alteration and enhancement.

2. The short facts that appear from the record are that the parties were married in March, 1990. No child was born from the wedlock. They stayed together for 8 – 9 months. The wife had alleged that demands of dowry were made. In November, 1994 the husband is said to have left the petitioner at Chandigarh and had demanded Rs.50,000/- and had issued a threat. The wife got a FIR registered in February, 1995 at Police Station Adampur under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC. The matter was got settled by the Panchayat but the wife was thrown out of the house and the case was reopened. The petitioner had pleaded that she was unable to maintain herself. The husband was working as Lance Naik in the Army and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and had movable and immovable property. The petitioner claimed Rs.1,000/- per month as maintenance.

3. The husband resisted the petition and pleaded that the petitioner had treated him with cruelty at the instance of his brother who was posted in Chandigarh and in the office of DGP, Punjab and was influential. It was pleaded that petitioner started living with her parents since December, 1992 and he had filed a petition under Section 9 and Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the petitioner failed to appear and she was proceeded ex parte and thereafter, the matter was compromised and the case was withdrawn. It was averred that the family members and the petitioner started torturing him and he had filed a petition seeking divorce which was pending. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was earning more than Rs.2,000/- per month from tailoring work. He admitted that he was working in the Army but pleaded that his income was Rs.2,000/- per month.

4. The trial Magistrate considered the evidence and noted that the respondent had retired and he was getting pension of Rs.1665/- per month but it gave a finding that there was an admission of respondent that he was actually getting family pension of Rs.3865/- and allowed Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of the application.

5. Dis-satisfied, the wife preferred a revision and Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 13.01.2011 enhanced the maintenance from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/-. The concluding paragraph reads as under:-

“The profession of Amarjit Singh respondent is also not disputed. It is an admitted fact that he was serving in the Indian Army. Tarsem Lal RW1 produced the record and confirmed that Amarjit Singh retired from the Army on 1.7.2003. his pension book is Ex.RW1/A and I/card is Ex.RW1/B. His basic pension is admittedly Rs.1665/-. It has come in the cross examination of this witness that the respondent commuted his pension for a period of 15 years and received Rs.1,46,595/-. He received gratuity, G.P. Fund and other retiral benefits. After his retirement he is working as an agriculturist. On the other hand, Pushpa Devi has no source of income to maintain herself. She is dependent on her parents since 10.10.1996. It has come in the cross-examination of Amarjit Singh RW6 that he is not ready to reconcile with his wife. He has not sent money to his wife for her maintenance. Rather, he filed a divorce case which is dismissed vide judgment dated 6.5.2005. No doubt appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court but till date the divorce case filed by the respondent has been dismissed. The respondent is legally bound to provide maintenance to his wife but the maintenance granted by the lower court @ Rs.1,000/- per month is towards