The wife sought revision against the grant of Rs. 6000 monthly maintenance, arguing the amount was inadequate. The husband challenged this further enhancement to Rs. 8000 by the Revisional Court. The High Court rejected the challenge.
Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed; maintenance enhancement of Rs. 8,000 per month upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 60 of 2015 Reserved on: 22.05.2017 Decided on: 19.06.2017
______________________________________________________ Titlu Ram …..Petitioner. Versus Darshnu Devi ……Respondent. ______________________________________________________ Coram_ The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. B.M. Chauhan and Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocates.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
The present criminal revision petition is maintained by the petitioner, who is husband of the respondent, challenging order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 27-S/10 of 14/12, whereby the order dated 27.12.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, in Case No. 136-4 of 2010/2009, was modified.
are that the petitioner and the respondent, herein, are husband and wife. Initially, the wife maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor child, which was allowed and they were granted maintenance @ 300/- and @ 200/- per month, respectively, vide judgment dated 04.06.1992. The maintenance amount was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide order dated 09.04.1996, and maintenance amount @ 500/- and 300/-
per month, respectively, was granted to the wife and son. Subsequently, on 14.01.2004, the wife maintained an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., seeking further enhancement of maintenance amount, which was also allowed and maintenance allowance @ `3000/- was granted. The wife again maintained a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance amount, which was allowed, vide order dated 27.12.2011,
3
and maintenance of `3000/- per month was enhanced to
6000/- per month. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1<sup>st</sup> Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, was further assailed by the wife, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of the learned First Revisional Court, wherein she pleaded that the maintenance amount, as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1<sup>st</sup> Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, is inadequate. The learned First Revisional Court, vide order dated 11.11.2014, modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1<sup>st</sup> Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, and enhanced the maintenance allowance from 6000/- to `8000/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, through the present petition, the husband, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, has challenged the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned First Revisional Court.
4
appreciating the facts, which have come on record, has enhanced the maintenance from 6,000/- to 8,000/- and
that order is required to be set-aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no revision was filed by the petitioner (husband) against the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting maintenance @ 6,000/- per month and the present petition is not maintainable. He has further argued that the petitioner is a man of means, he has big chunk of land and money in his account, therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance @ 8,000/- per month to the petitioner (wife), which was awarded by the learned Revisional Court. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioner is not liable to pay such a big amount as now he has retired from service and only drawing meager amount as pension.
5
husband and that is why she was forced to file a petition against him, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance. Subsequently, the learned Revisional Court has enhanced her maintenance @ `8,000/- per month.
6,000/- per month and that order was not challenged by the petitioner-husband, meaning thereby the petitioner-husband was not aggrieved with the order of maintenance whereby maintenance monthly @ of 6,000/- was granted to the respondent-wife. The aforesaid amount was adjudicated upon by the learned Trail Court on 27.12.2011. Though, as per the petitioner-husband he is notin a position to pay maintenance, but it has come in the statement of the respondent-wife, while appearing in the witness-box before the learned Trail Court, that monthly maintenance amount of 3,000/- is required to be enhanced as her husband (petitioner) is drawing monthly salary of 46,560/- and this fact stood proved on record. The only case of the petitioner-husband is that respondentwife has left his company without any reason and thus she is
6
not entitled for any maintenance.
maintenance to the wife is concerned, that matter has attained finality as the order of the learned Trial Court , dated 27.12.2011, was never assailed by the petitionerhusband and the only dispute which is pending adjudication is whether the learned Revisional Court was right in enhancing the maintenance from 6,000/- to 8,000/- per month. Again, at the cost of repetition, it is made clear that the petitioner-husband never challenged order dated 27.12.2011, before the learned Revisional Court, whereby maintenance @ `6,000/- per month was granted to the respondent-wife.
7
that the petitioner-husband is a man of means and he has no-one to support, except the respondent-wife, as the children are now well settled in their lives, this Court findings that the petitioner-husband is liable to maintain the respondent-wife, as he is a man of resources, as he is getting pension, having landed property, has received GPF, gratuity and benefits, which are lying in his deposit, as he has no-one else to support than the petitioner. Thus, this Court finds that there is no illegality committed by the learned Revisional Court in enhancing the maintenance amount from 6,000/- to 8,000/- per month. The petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge
19th June, 2017
(virender)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should set aside the Revisional Court's enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month.
Whether the petitioner-husband is entitled to quash the order enhancing maintenance given his claim of retirement and reduced pension.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Titlu Ram
Darshnu Devi
Chander Bhusan Barowalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court