VINEET SOOD Vs. POONAM SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 16/8/2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala H.P. (learned Revisional Court) vide which the order dtd. 18/12/2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents/applicants filed an application before learned Trial Court for seeking maintenance. Learned Trial Court issued notices in an ordinary manner and through registered A.D. cover. The notices were not returned, hence, Dasti notice was be issued. Applicant No. 1 filed an affidavit on 20. 07.2017 that the respondent had refused to accept the service of notice. A copy of the notice containing an endorsement of the process server was also filed. Hence, the Court vide order dtd. 5/8/2017 held that the respondent knew the date of the hearing but he had failed to appear before the Court. Hence, the respondent was proceeded against the ex-parte. The Court asked the applicants to lead evidence. Applicant No. 1 examined herself. Learned Trial Court granted maintenance @ Rs.15,000.00per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs.10,000.00 per month to applicant No.2.

(3.) Being aggrieved from the order passed by learned Trial Court, the original respondent filed a revision which was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala (Revisional Court). It was held that the respondent has the remedy of approaching the learned Trial Court under Sec. 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. He could seek a modification of the maintenance under Sec. 127 of Cr.P.C. Applicant No. 1 stated that the income of the respondent was Rs.65,000.00 per month from the immovable property and Rs.80,000.00 to Rs.1,00,000.00 per month as a Development Officer in LIC. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement. The learned Trial Court had rightly granted the maintenance to the applicants, and no interference was required with the order passed by the learned Trial Court.