MUSKAN DHIMAN & ANOTHER Vs. KAPIL DHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioners under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') laying challenge to the order, dated 18.08.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 3-S-10 of 2013, whereby maintenance was declined to petitioner No. 2, Akansha Dhiman and the order dated 19.12.2012, in Criminal Case No. 53/4 of 2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, H.P., was partly modified. The petitioners are also seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount by altering the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan

(2.) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that, as per the petitioners (daughters of the respondent), the respondent herein and their mother are the husband and wife. The petitioners maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, seeking maintenance from the respondent, on account of barbarous behaviour towards the petitioners and their mother, being meted out by the respondent. The petitioners, alongwith their mother, were compelled to leave the house of the respondent. Petitioner No. 2 was sent for coaching at Kota (Rajasthan) and subsequently she was selected for Engineering course at J.P. University, Vaknaghat, and for that her mother spent '2.5 lac annually. When petitioner No. 1 was studying in 10th standard in Saint Luke's School, Solan, all expenses, viz., fee, day to day expenses, tuition fee, expenditure etc. were around Rs. 20,000/- per month and the expenses were likely to increase as petitioner No. 1 was likely to pursue higher studies. As per the petitioner, the respondent did not pay a single penny to them since they were ousted and respondent is posted as Assistant Drug Licensing Authority at Solan and is getting salary to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- per month.

(3.) The respondent, by filing reply to the petition, refuted the allegations made in the petition and raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the petition, as petitioner No. 2 attained the age of majority, hence she is not entitled for maintenance. On merits, it is denied that the behaviour of the respondent was not barbarous towards the mother of the petitioner and it is also denied that he is earning Rs. 70,000/- per month. However, it is averred that his salary is Rs. 42,428/- per month. The respondent had admitted that petitioner No. 2 is studying in J.P. University, but, as she has attained majority, she is not entitled for maintenance. As per the respondent, earlier he was paying the fee of petitioner No. 2. The respondent has denied that petitioners require maintenance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month and it is averred that expenditure of petitioner No. 1 is not more than Rs. 4,000/- per month. The respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.