TITLU RAM Vs. DARSHNU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision petition is maintained by the petitioner, who is husband of the respondent, challenging order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 27-S/10 of 14/12, whereby the order dated 27.12.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, in Case No. 136-4 of 2010/2009, was modified.

(2.) Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner and the respondent, herein, are husband and wife. Initially, the wife maintained a petition under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor child, which was allowed and they were granted maintenance @ Rs.300.00 and @ Rs.200.00 per month, respectively, vide judgment dated 04.06.199 The maintenance amount was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide order dated 09.04.1996, and maintenance amount @ Rs.500.00 and Rs.300.00 per month, respectively, was granted to the wife and son. Subsequently, on 14.01.2004, the wife maintained an application under Sec. 127 Crimial P.C. seeking further enhancement of maintenance amount, which was also allowed and maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000.00 was granted. The wife again maintained a petition under Sec. 127 Crimial P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance amount, which was allowed, vide order dated 27.12011, and maintenance of Rs.3000.00 per month was enhanced to Rs.6000.00 per month. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, was further assailed by the wife, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of the learned First Revisional Court, wherein she pleaded that the maintenance amount, as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, is inadequate. The learned First Revisional Court, vide order dated 11.11.2014, modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.6000.00 to Rs.8000.00 per month, from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, through the present petition, the husband, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, has challenged the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned First Revisional Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.