TEHSIL BAIJNATH Vs. RAJNI BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2010 enhancing the maintenance granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 30.9.2010 in petition No. 14 of 2009. The facts in brief are that the respondents had filed petition No. 14 of 2009 on 24.10.2009 against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur on 30.9.2010. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/ - per month each with effect from 24.10.2009.

(2.) THE petitioner filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage against respondent No. 1. In that petition, the respondents filed CMA No. 742 of 2009 on 22.12.2009 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act ') which was allowed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 23.6.2010 and fixed maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs.3000/ - to respondent No. 1 and at the rate of Rs.1200/ - to respondent No. 2 from the date of filing of the petition under Section 24. In addition, litigation expenses of Rs.2000/ - were also granted in favour of the respondents.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sessions Judge has erred in allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,500/ - per month to each of the respondents without taking into consideration the order dated 23.6.2010 passed by the District Judge in the application under Section 24 of the Act. It has been submitted that the maintenance allowed by the District Judge on 23.6.2010 is to be taken into consideration while fixing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied Sudeep Chaudhary vs. Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 and Sanjay Chopra vs. Shyama Chopra 2001 (1) HLR 481.