J.M.TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of two revisions Nos. 11 -R of 1975 and 221 of 1975 which relate to the same parties and about the same point.
(2.) NARINDER Kaur petitioner is the wife of Jit Singh respondent. Narinder Kaur gave birth to a son in about 1968. In 1971 she applied for maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code (old) from Jit Singh for herself and for her minor son alleging that she had been turned out by Jit Singh and was not maintaining her and her minor son. The trial Magistrate vide his order dated November 27, 1973, found that Narinder Kaur had sufficient means to maintain herself and therefore declined maintenance to her for herself and her minor son. Narinder Kaur preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, who, vide his order dated October 16, 1974, made a reference to his Court recommending that Rs. 80/ - per month be fixed as maintenance for the minor child whereas Narinder Kaur herself is not entitled to any maintenance because she can maintain herself. Criminal Revision No. 11 -R of 1975 relates to this reference.
(3.) NARINDER Kaur has preferred Criminal Revision No. 221 of 1975 alleging that she is not in a position, to maintain herself and her maintenance be fixed as well. The learned counsel for Jit Singh respondent has argued that Jit Singh owned 546 Kanals 1 Marla of land and he had transferred one tenth share of his holding to Narinder Kaur. The share of Narinder Kaur in the holding thus comes to 7 acres. She can have her share partitioned or sold. She is, therefore, in a position to maintain herself and her minor son from the sale proceeds of the lard or its income. She and her minor son are not entitled to any maintenance under section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. I do not agree with this contention. It is not disputed that at one time Jit Singh transferred one tenth share of his land measuring 546 Kanals I Marla in favour of Narinder Kaur which, according to her, was done, to save land from the land holding ceiling. In fact, she is not getting any income out of this land. The share of land given to her continues to be joint. Under these circumstances, Jit Singh is liable to give maintenance to her and her minor son because he is neither keeping them nor giving maintenance expenses.;