HARISH CHAND Vs. SARITA DEVI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order, dated 12.12.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., whereby the petitioner was ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- each to the respondents.

(2.) As per the petitioner, he moved an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Revisional Court") for suspension of execution of order dated 01.08.2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P., in petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C., till disposal of the revision. Avowedly, the petitioner is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2. Respondents No. 1 and 2 moved application for the learned Trial Court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowance @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. The learned Trial Court vide its decision dated 01.08.2018, enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1 and from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to respondent No. 2. Thus, cumulatively, the maintenance amount was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. Subsequently, the present petitioner assailed the order of enhancement before the learned Revisional Court by filing a revision petition. The learned Revisional Court partly allowed the application and the petitioner was directed to pay the entire arrear @ Rs. 10,000/- per month within a month from 12.12.2018 (the date of the order) and he was also directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month till disposal of the revision petition. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner maintained the present petition tersely on the ground that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court is illegal, wrong, perverse and contrary to the facts, thus the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner further contends that his net cash in hand monthly salary is Rs. 37,500/- and he pays Rs. 34,000/- per month towards the loan installment of loan amounting to Rs.22,57,533/-. The petitioner averred that if an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is deducted per month from out of Rs. 37,500/-, then the petitioner will be left with Rs. 17,500/- only and it will become difficult for him to meet out his day to day expenses and other social obligations. As per the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- is so high, so the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the petition be allowed.

(3.) Heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Revisional Court without appreciating the facts and the maintenance amount is on very higher side. He has further argued that the amount is required to be reduced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of the income of the petitioner, the amount of maintenance is just and reasoned. He has argued that the petition has no merits and the same deserves dismissal and may be accordingly dismissed.