S .S.SANDHAWALIA,.J - (1.) Bachan Kaur respondent, wife of the petitioner, had brought an application under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) seeking maintenance from him, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist C1ass, Mansa. The trial Court whilst holding that the petitioner was liable to pay maintenance 'adverted to the quantum thereof, and noticed that the respondent undoubtedly owned agricultural land to the tune of 1/7th of share in an area of 291 Kanals I Marla established on the record by Jamabandi for the year 1971 -72 (Exhibit RW I/1). Without adverting to the income or value of that land, the trial Court proceeded to award Rs. 60/ - per month as maintenance against the petitioner from the date of its order. On a revision being preferred against the said order by both, the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Sessions judge, Bhatinda, whilst affirming the finding of fact regarding the ownership of land by the respondent wife upheld the grant of maintenance without any discussion of the effect of the same on the quantum of the maintenance.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has primarily and rightly placed reliance on Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi and another, A.I.R 1975 Supreme Court 83, to contend that both the Court below have been remiss in not taking into consideration the property admittedly owned by the respondent wife and in not adequately adverting to the income derived therefrom. which will be one of the most relevant considerations for determining the quantum of maintenance. It was even contended that in view of the established fact of the ownership of agricultural land. the respondent would hardly be entitled to any maintenance considering the status of the parties
(3.) NO appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondent despite service. I, therefore, did not have the benefit of any argument on the other side. Nevertheless, I have examined the legal position carefully. There is patent merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner However, it deserves particular notice that before the Courts below the judgment which held the field was Joginder Singh v. Bibi Raj Mohinder Kaur, A I.R 1960 Punjab 249, which took the view that the ability of the wife to maintain herself was not intended by the legislature to determine her entitlement of the maintenance provided by Section 488. That view has now been over -ruled in Bhagwan Dutt's case (supra). It is, therefore, evident that the revision petition must succeed and the maintenance must be determined in accordance with the law now authoritatively laid down by their Lordships of the supreme Court.;