HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 78 of 2007 Decided on: 7.4.2008 Mahesh Chand ………Petitioner. Versus Renu Sharma & others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra, dated 20.7.2007. Briefly started the facts of the case are that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner. The case was tried by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jawali and vide his order, dated 1.1.2007, he allowed the petition and a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month was awarded in favour of respondent No.1, while a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month each was awarded to respondents No.2 and 3, as maintenance from the date _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - of filing of the petition. The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the said order which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra, vide its judgment dated 20.7.2007 and he affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed their reply. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents is too excessive keeping in view the evidence of the parties and the fact that the petitioner was only having a carry home salary of Rs.10,318/- per month. It was submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his father as well as himself. Therefore, the amount of maintenance deserves to be reduced considerably. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons given therein supplementing it by submissions that keeping in view the present day prices, the amount of maintenance awarded in favour of the respondents cannot be said to be excessive. Before I consider this question, I would like to first make a reference to some of the decisions to consider the question if the present petition was not maintainable. Reliance can be placed upon the decision in Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Cases - 3 - 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. 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.” Reliance can also be placed on the decision in Ashoka Dutta Gupta and another vs. 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. The decision in Kamla Devi and others vs. 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. - 4 - 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 re-consider the question of granting the maintenance as modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court. 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 Additional 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. I have gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and it is clear that he has made a reference to the certificate produced by the petitioner which shows that his carry home salary was Rs.10,318/-. However, there is no mention of the gross salary, though it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the income of the petitioner may have exceeded Rs.12,000/- per month keeping in view the payment of instalments of ADA and one or two increments which the petitioner may have earned during this period. This Court is not sitting in revision against the original order passed by the learned Magistrate and the evidence is not required to be re-appreciated while considering the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 - 5 - other reasons to hold that the said order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from any illegality. Keeping in view the evidence in regard to income and the fact that the children have 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. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (V.K. Ahuja), April 7, 2008 Judge. (TILAK)