KANWAR DANG Vs. VASUDEO DANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Criminal Revision No. 62 of 1975 the petitioner is the son and the respondent is the father. The petitioner is residing with his mother who has been divorced by the respondent and the petitioner at present is in the custody of the mother and the petitioner through his mother and guardian, filed an application under Section 488 of the Cri. P. C. on 6th of March, 1973 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, first class, Simla for grant of maintenance of an amount of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the application. This application was opposed by the respondent.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate after examining the evidence came to the finding that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from the date of the order which was passed on 30-6-1975. Against this order Kanwar Dang again filed this present petition and it was prayed that the maintenance instead of 306-1975 be ordered to be paid to the petitioner from 5-3-1973 and the amount of maintenance be enhanced from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 500/- per month. According to the petitioner the Court below had erred in granting him a meagre amount of Rupees 200/- by way of maintenance and further also erred in granting this amount only from the date of the decision of the application. So this revision was preferred only for enhancement of the amount of maintenance as also to grant the same from the date of the presentation of the application.

(3.) THE father, Dr. Vasudev Dang, also preferred a revision petition against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate before the Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Magistrate had not taken into account the earnings of the mother of the child. Furlhei that the petitioner had specifically pleaded that he is ever ready and willing to maintain the child provided the custody of the child was given to him, that Dr. Supriya was pot willing to give the custody of the child to the natural guardian. Further that there was an offer to maintain the child which was specifically pleaded in the written statement and the effect of the same had not been considered by the learned Magistrate. That there is no reason shown on the record as to why the child is not permitted to live with the petitioner who is the natural guardian, that there is no finding and evidence on the record that the child is unable to maintain itself and lastly the allowance fixed by the learned Magistrate at Rs. 200/- per month is extremely excessive.