JUDGMENT (V.K. Ahuja, J.) - This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arki was partly allowed and the maintenance amount was reduced from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month. 2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent (minor) through his mother Smt. Neelam Gupta filed a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance as against the petitioner. The said petition was tried by the learned trial Court which granted maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the present respondent. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Solan who vide his order dated 1.6.2007, modified the order passed by the learned Magistrate and reduced the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition in the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reducing the maintenance only to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- per month, the petitioner has prayed that the amount awarded by the learned Sessions Judge excessive and it deserves to be reduced considerably. 3.A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent through his mother. 4.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5.The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner were that the second revision petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court was not maintainable and therefore, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate has granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance which was excessive and it deserved to be reduced considerably, but the learned Sessions Judge modified the amount to Rs. 3,000/-, which also deserves to be reduced considerably. The plea taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case that the guardian and mother of respondent was serving. It was also submitted that the petitioner was only working as an agent with LIC and his income was not Rs. The plea taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case that the guardian and mother of respondent was serving. It was also submitted that the petitioner was only working as an agent with LIC and his income was not Rs. 25,000/- per month as alleged by the respondent. According to the mother and guardian of respondent, the respondent is studying in a Public School and she has to spend about Rs. 5,000/- per month on his education. She also admitted her own income as Rs. 2,500/- per month but that is not material since the petitioner being the father of the minor is responsible to maintain the minor son i.e. the respondent. The minor respondent was born on 10.7.2001 as per his mother PW-2 Neelam Gupta and when the petition was decided by the learned trial Court, he was of the age of five years and when the petition was filed he was of 4 years. The revision petition was decided by the learned Sessions Judge in 2007 when the minor child was of the age of about 6 years. 6.A perusal of the judgments passed by the learned trial Court and learned Sessions Judge shows that they had considered the evidence led in regard to the income of the respondent (petitioner herein) as an agent, which was about Rs. 1,53,000/- in 2004-05 and it was Rs. 1,09,000/- approximately in 2003-04. A child is required to be maintained by his father in accordance with the income of his father and is, therefore, entitled to a reasonable amount of maintenance. 7.Before I consider this question, I would like to first make a reference to some of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent to substantiate his plea that the present petition was not maintainable. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, 1997(4) Supreme Court Cases 241 wherein, it was observed that the second revision before High Court after dismissal of first one by the court of Sessions is barred under Section 397(3). However, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482. It was observed that such inherent power must be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. However, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482. It was observed that such inherent power must be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. The observations made in para 6 are relevant and are being reproduced below: “6. Section 483 enjoins upon every High Court to so exercise its continuous superintendence over the Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to ensure that there is an expeditious and proper disposal of cases by such Magistrates. The power of the High Court of continuous supervisory jurisdiction is of paramount importance to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed as also regularity of the proceedings of all inferior criminal courts.” 8.Reliance was also placed on the decision in Ashoka Dutta Gupta and another v. Sujit Dutta Gupta and another, 2000(9) Supreme Court Cases 193. The facts of the case shows that the wife and child were granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/- per month, respectively, by the trial Court. In revision petition, High Court though finding no reason to interfere, still reduced the said amounts to Rs. 800/- and Rs. 400/-, respectively. It was held that such reduction was absolutely uncalled for. 9.The decision in Kamla Devi and others v. Mool Raj, 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 722(1) shows that maintenance was granted by trial Court, finding of trial Court based on proper appreciation of evidence, interference by High Court in revision, therefore, held was not justified. 10.Keeping in view the above decisions, it is clear that once the discretion has been exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in the first revision petition, there is no occasion for the High Court to reconsider the question of granting the maintenance as modified by the learned Sessions Judge. The power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. could have been exercised only if was shown that there was some irregularity or illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge in exercising its jurisdiction at the time of deciding of the revision petition. Therefore, it follows from the above decisions that there was no occasion for this Court to re-consider the evidence and form its own opinion under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to consider as to what could have been the reasonable amount of maintenance. Therefore, it follows from the above decisions that there was no occasion for this Court to re-consider the evidence and form its own opinion under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to consider as to what could have been the reasonable amount of maintenance. 11.It is not a question to be considered by this Court as to what should be the amount of the maintenance. The only question is whether there are any other reasons to hold that the said order passed by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from any illegality. 12.Keeping in view the evidence in regard to income and the fact that the child has to be maintained in accordance with the position of the father in the society, the orders of maintenance passed by the Courts below call for no interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed accordingly alongwith costs quantified as Rs. 1100/- payable by the petitioner to respondent. M.R.B. ———————