IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.09.2025 MEENA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONERS VERSUS KRISHAN SINGH ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioners.

None for the respondent.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Prayer in the revision petition is for modification of order dated 18.08.2017 of learned District Judge, Family Court, Rohtak vide which a sum of `5,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance allowance to petitioner No.1 from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., besides litigation expenses of `5,500/-. It has been prayed that maintenance allowance be enhanced from `5,000/- to `18,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of the application.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that petitioner instituted the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. averring therein that petitioner No.1 was married with the respondent on 19.02.1987 as per hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, a male child, namely, Bitto (petitioner No.2) and a female child, namely, Vicky were born. At the time of marriage, the respondent was serving in Indian Army. He was a man of vices and residing separately from the petitioners. In February, 2014, petitioners were turned out of the matrimonial home. Respondent refused to maintain the petitioners who had no source of income and were solely dependent on the means of father of petitioner No.1. It has been averred that petitioner No.1 was illiterate, unemployed, old lady and petitioner No.2 was physically incapable of maintaining himself, having suffered backbone injury. It has been averred that respondent was a retired Army personnel getting pension of `13,000/- per month and also had rental income of `6,000/- from 3 houses in the village, besides agricultural land measuring 14 kanals.

3. Respondent did not contest the petition before learned District Judge, Family Court. Ex-parte evidence was recorded. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and proved the statement of account of respondent (Exhibit P-1) by examining Senior Manager of Central Bank of India, Rohtak as PW-2. Some revenue documents were tendered.

Petitioners’ evidence was closed.

4. Learned Family Court, Rohtak, on an assessment of entire oral as well as documentary evidence awarded a sum of `5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to petitioner No.1 and litigation expenses of `5,500/- with effect from date of filing of the petition. Prayer of petitioner No.2 for maintenance was declined, he being major son, having failed to prove any disability.

5. Aggrieved with the assessment, petitioners filed a revision petition before this Court. Having failed to prosecute it, vide order dated 13.05.2025, Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate was appointed Legal Aid Counsel to address arguments in the matter.

6. Respondent failed to appear in the revision petition despite due service.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, fairly conceded that there was no evidence to prove that petitioner No.2 was disabled. Hence, he did not press the prayer for award of maintenance allowance for him. Referring to copy of statement of account of respondent and Jamabandi for the year 2015-16, he urged that it was well proved on record that respondent was drawing pension of `20,000/- per month and was also owner of 12 kanal 13 marla land. Thus, income of the respondent could safely be assessed at `20,000/- plus `12,500/- i.e. `35,000/-. Accordingly, maintenance allowance for petitioner No.1 deserved to be enhanced to `8000-`9,000/-.

8. The only point for consideration by this Court is whether maintenance allowance of `5,000/- awarded to petitioner No.1-Meena deserves to be enhanced.

9. The application for maintenance was instituted in the year 2014 and petitioners have pleaded therein that respondent was earning pension of `13,000/- from the Indian Army. It appears that the pen