NIRMALA DEVI Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS revision application takes exception to the decision of the Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu dated 9th October, 2006. The petitioner No.1 had filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of maintenance to herself as well as for minor daughter. The trial Court allowed the application and directed the respondent to pay amount @ Rs.1000/- per month to the petitioners, each. That decision was challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Court, Kullu being Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2005. The Sessions Court allowed the revision application and in turn was pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The Sessions Court, however, directed the respondent to pay maintenance allowance to the daughter, petitioner No. 2 @ Rs. 700/- per month, from the date of institution of the petition. The petitioners, being dis-satisfied with the decision, have approached this Court by way of present revision. In the present revision, the first grievance made by the petitioners is about the finding recorded by the Sessions Court on the factum of relationship between the parties. The Sessions Court has held, as of fact, that petitioner No. 1 has failed to substantiate that she was legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Sessions Court has analyzed the evidence on record on this issue, as can be discerned from discussion in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment. In my view, the conclusion reached by the Sessions Court on this issue is unexceptional.

(3.) THAT takes us to the second grievance of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there is no reason indicated by the Sessions Judge, whatsoever, as to why the amount of monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner No. 2, who is daughter of petitioner No.1 and respondent. The trial Court had awarded Rs.1,000/- per month as monthly maintenance amount to be paid to her. The Sessions Judge except observing that it is on higher side has not recorded any tangible reason to justify the reduction of that amount and why the amount of Rs.700/- per month would be just and proper? The quantum fixed by the trial Court, being a discretionary order ought not to have been interfered with by the revisional Court as a matter of course but something more is required to be done and to be recorded by the revisional Court to upset that conclusion. In the circumstances, this revision ought to succeed to the limited extent of quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge reducing the amount of monthly maintenance payable to the petitioner No. 2 from Rs.1000/- to Rs.700/-. Instead, the order passed by the trial Court directing the respondent to pay monthly maintenance amount to petitioner No. 2 @ Rs.1000/-, is restored on the same terms, i.e. from the date of institution of the petition. Revision, partly succeeds on the above terms and the same is disposed of accordingly.