IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M.O No. 32 of 2009 Date of decision: 25. 5. 2009 Manohar Lal …..Petitioner Versus Rashma Devi and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate. For respondents : None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) By this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in criminal revision No. 19-P/2006 dated 23.1.2009, whereby the order of enhancement of monthly maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/-, passed by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was upheld. Heard and gone through the record. The respondents were awarded monthly maintenance vide order dated 15.2.2000 by the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. - 2 - learned trial Magistrate in a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure @ 500/- each. On 17.5.2005, the respondents herein moved an application under Section 127 of the Code seeking enhancement on the ground that the prices of the essential commodities have also multiplied and respondent No. 2, the minor son of the petitioner was studying in the 5th standard. His fee and other expenses for providing uniform and books have also increased. The petitioner-husband denied these facts and according to him, he was only drawing Rs. 1300/- per month which is not even sufficient to meet his own requirement but the plea of the petitioner did not find favour with the trial court and the amount was enhanced to Rs. 1000/- each per month. On the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner had sought divorce from respondent No. 1 and solemnized his marriage with Smt. Binta Devi. The grounds, on which he was granted divorce were not placed before the learned trial court and also before the Revisional Court. His only contention was that in the meager salary of Rs. 1300/- per month he cannot pull on even himself what to talk of providing enhanced maintenance to the respondents. This plea - 3 - appears to be incorrect, as during the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he alleged salary @ 1400/- per month then how could it be 1300/- per month in the year 2005-2006 in the proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the orders of the courts below. It is a settled law that the inherent powers, inter alia, should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process and of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any abuse of process of the court. Further the evidence on record shows that when the order was passed, the prices of the essential commodities were less as compared to the prices on the day when the application was moved for enhancement and further the expenses were needed for education of the minor respondent, who was a student of 5th standard at that time. The Revisional court judiciously noticed the above facts which were also borne out from the record. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is an able- bodied person and has an earning capacity, the - 4 - enhancement is justified and is held to be not excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order which is otherwise just and reasonable. Thus, impugned order calls for no interference, therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine. Cr.M.P.No.152 of 2009. Infructuous. May 25, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)