Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 450 (HP)

Harish Chand v. Sarita Devi

2019-04-24

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 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. 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. 4. In rebuttal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that keeping in view the loan liability on the shoulders of the petitioner and also the fact that the maintenance amount awarded is on very higher side, the petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Revision Court be quashed and set aside. 5. Respondents earlier maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and they were awarded monthly maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- each. The petitioner herein has stated that his father had undergone bypass surgery and he has loan liability of Rs. 24,00,000/- (rupees twenty four lac). The petitioner could not produce any medical record of his father and he has admitted in his cross-examination that his father is an Ex-Army personnel and he availed medical facility under ECH. The petitioner further admitted that since 2012, he is working as Bank Manager and his monthly salary is more than Rs. 70,000/-. He further deposed that he owns vehicle Swift. Admittedly, the petitioner's monthly income is Rs. 80,000/- per month and he is deputed as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank. 6. The petitioner had tried to convince this Court that he has to look after his old father and the maintenance allowance, so awarded, is on very higher side. Generally, speaking expression 'maintenance' means appropriate food, clothing and shelter. Admittedly, the petitioner's monthly income is Rs. 80,000/- per month and he is deputed as Senior Manager in Punjab National Bank. 6. The petitioner had tried to convince this Court that he has to look after his old father and the maintenance allowance, so awarded, is on very higher side. Generally, speaking expression 'maintenance' means appropriate food, clothing and shelter. The word 'maintenance' is not to be narrowly interpreted. Indeed, maintenance encapsulates constant expenses towards the wife and children. In the instant case, maintenance to respondent No. 1 has been awarded keeping in mind her regular day to day expenses and for respondent No. 2 maintenance has included minimum amount for her education. Indeed, maintenance to a child does not mean providing raiment and food only. Maintenance to only human body is not sufficient, especially in case of children, as the children need to be educated and their overall development has to be kept in mind. In the instant case also, respondent No. 2, who is daughter of the petitioner, has been awarded maintenance by the learned Trial Court keeping in mind her educational expenses. PW-1 Smt. Sarita Devi (respondent No. 1 herein) deposed that educational and other expenses of the daughter (respondent No. 2 herein) are more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. She has further deposed that she has to pay monthly rent of Rs. 6500/-. 7. It has come on record that the petitioner has sufficient source of income, whereas the respondents have no source of income. In the above set of circumstances, this Court finds that respondent No. 2 is totally dependent for her education and other expenses on the petitioner and respondent No. 1 is also dependent upon the maintenance allowance awarded to her. Keeping in view the growing inflation rate as also the overall aspects of the case, this Court finds that the respondents have no source of income to meet their day to day expenses and respondent No. 2 needs money for her education, so it cannot be said that order granting the respondents monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 10,000/- each is at all unreasonable. However, as the revision petition is pending adjudication before the learned Revisional Court below, the petitioner herein can argue and defend his cause there. 8. 10,000/- each is at all unreasonable. However, as the revision petition is pending adjudication before the learned Revisional Court below, the petitioner herein can argue and defend his cause there. 8. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.