Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 76 (HP)

Ganga Ram. v. Begu Devi.

2014-01-10

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This petition has been filed against the order dated 2.6.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2012. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent had filed Cr.M.A. No. 307/IV/09 on 28.10.2009 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class enhanced the maintenance from ‘ 500/- to ‘ 800/- per month from the date of passing of order, i.e. 19.12.2011. Respondent filed criminal revision against the order dated 19.12.2011 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi. He enhanced the maintenance amount of ‘ 800/- to ‘ 5000/- per month. 3. Respondent appeared as PW-1. She has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PA. She has reiterated the contents of the petition. According to her, due to change in circumstances and increase in the cost of living, she is entitled to enhanced maintenance. According to her, earlier petitioner was Blacksmith and subsequently promoted as Forman. 4. Petitioner has appeared as DW-1. He has admitted the relationship with respondent. According to him, they have three children. Two sons are living with him. One of the sons has four boys and other has three daughters. According to him, monthly expenditure of the family is about ‘ 20,000/- to ‘ 22,000/-. He has admitted that his salary was ‘ 24,000/- per month. However, he has deposed that his financial condition would deteriorate after his retirement. 5. The application for enhancement was filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi on 28.10.2009. He has enhanced the maintenance from ‘ 500/- to ‘ 800/- per month as per order dated 19.12.2011. The Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi has enhanced the maintenance from ‘ 800/- to ‘ 5000/- on 2.6.2012. Petitioner has retired in the month of October, 2012. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. When he was earning ‘ 24,000/- per month, he was only paying a sum of ‘ 500/- to the respondent. It is in these circumstances, the amount has been enhanced initially by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class from ‘ 500/- to ‘ 800/- per month and thereafter by the Additional Sessions Judge from ‘ 800/- to ‘ 5000/- per month taking into consideration that the petitioner was working as a Foreman. It is in these circumstances, the amount has been enhanced initially by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class from ‘ 500/- to ‘ 800/- per month and thereafter by the Additional Sessions Judge from ‘ 800/- to ‘ 5000/- per month taking into consideration that the petitioner was working as a Foreman. Petitioner has admitted that the cost of living has increased manifold. Petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-4 to establish that he has retired and is getting pension. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the pension of the petitioner will increase from time to time. It cannot be believed that two grown up children of the parties are not doing anything. Petitioner is duty bond to maintain his wife. His children are already married. 6. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.