SUNIL KUMAR Vs. MEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition had been filed by the husband impugning the order of the trial Magistrate dated 17.12.1992 as also the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 22.2.1994, passed on an application filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the wife and two minor children. The trial Magistrate on the basis of the income of the husband allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the wife and Rs. 100/- each per month to the daughters. Feeling aggrieved against the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children, the wife has filed a Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who vide his order dated 22.2.1994, accepted the revision and ordered that Rohni and Anuradha i.e. daughters would be entitled to maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250/- each per month from the date of the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The present petition has been filed for quashing the orders mentioned above, inter-alia on the following grounds: (i) that the wife is trained diploma holder of Beauty Parlour Course and she is employed as a teacher in All India Women Centre, Amritsar from 1.10.1988 to 31.3.1990 and also running her own business in the house and earning more than Rs. 1500/- per month; (ii) that the petitioner is still ready to keep the children and wife and it is the wife who has withdrawn herself and the children from the society of the petitioner without reasonable cause; (iii) that the petitioner is an employee on one shop having income of Rs. 800/- per month.

(2.) THE grounds taken in the petition have been considered by the trial Magistrate as well as by the Additional Sessions Judge and, thus, there is no scope left for interference by this Court in petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The wife was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month by the trial Magistrate. The husband never challenged this order before the Addl. Sessions Judge in revision. It is only the wife who filed revision before the Addl. Sessions Judge, who modified the order of the trial Magistrate in regard to maintenance to children, and allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- each, per month to the children. Now in this petition under Section 482 Crl. P.C., petitioner cannot be allowed to urge that the maintenance awarded by the trial Magistrate to the wife is not justified. The trial Magistrate as well as the Addl. Sessions Judge have awarded maintenance after considering the income of the husband and, therefore, orders impugned here call for no interference by this Court.