IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 97 of 2005 Date of Decision : June 16, 2009 Govind Chand …Petitioner. Versus: Urmil Verma and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Inderjit Narwal, Advocate Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral). Petitioner is the husband against whom an order dated 2.7.2005 has been passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan, H. P. directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to his wife Urmil Verma and Rs.1,000/- each to his minor daughters Baby Sukanya and Baby Khushboo as maintenance. Respondents herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, against the petitioner herein, claiming maintenance from their husband/father. In terms of order dated 16.12.2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month to his wife and Rs.600/- per month each to his minor daughters. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The said order was assailed by the parties before the Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. and vide order dated 2.7.2005 the Appellate Court, while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and allowing the present respondents’ appeal directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month each to the minor daughters. Admittedly, the petitioner is a government servant. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. His carry home salary, though was approximately Rs.5,000/- per month. This was after statutory and non-statutory deduction. The petitioner has been supporting himself without any difficulty. In any event, petitioner’s salary and remuneration has been on the increase. The children are growing and do need money for their education and upbringing. The respondents have no source of income. The petitioner unsuccessfully filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The marriage between the parties still survives. The Courts below have considered the entire material while determining the amount of maintenance to which the claimants are held entitled to. The Court has taken into account various factors, including the standard of living of the petitioner, the expense required for up-bringing and education of the children as also the rise in the prices and increase of inflation. 3 That the petitioner has defaulted in maintaining the respondents, stands established from the record and more particularly from the statements of Smt. Urmil Verma (PW-1) as also Baby Sukanya (PW-2). The petitioner is duty bound to maintain his family and look after his children. The Courts below have considered the material in its entirety. There is no illegality or infirmity in the same. I find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 16, 2009. (rana)