IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M M O No.11 of 2003 Date of decision: 3rd July,2008 Ishro alias Ishwar Chand Petitioner Versus Asha Devi & another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Shilpa Sood, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 1.5.1999, passed in Petition No.4-IV of 1988, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba allowed the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents herein, whereby wife of the petitioner herein, was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month and the minor children were granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.250/- each per month. The revision petition, assailing the order of maintenance, filed by the husband, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his detailed order passed on 20th December, 2001. The petitioner, husband felt dissatisfied by the orders passed by both the courts below and filed the instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the grounds that the courts below fell in error while assessing the quantum of maintenance allowance in the light of the facts adduced on record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Admittedly, Smt. Asha Devi was married to the petitioner herein ten years before the filing of the petition before the learned trial court for maintenance and during this wedlock; she gave birth to three children. The wife of the petitioner husband alleged cruelty and maltreatment at the hands of her husband after she had given the birth to the third child and also alleged that she alongwith the respondents 2 and 3 were turned out from the matrimonial home and he kept another lady as his wife. Thus sought maintaince for herself and for the minors. The husband petitioner repelled the above allegations. He denied the paternity of the third child and alleged adultery. He also denied having kept any woman as his wife. Therefore; she could not have claimed the maintaince amount asked for. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial held that the husband has imputed the allegation of adultery against his wife to escape from the liability of maintenance respondent No.3 was his legimate issue, since the husband refused and neglected to maintain his wife and children, as such awarded the amount of maintenance as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge examined the legality, propriety and correctness of the order in the revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband, but he did not find anything wrong therein. After having heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case I also do not find any illegality in the orders of both the courts below, hence no case is made out for exercising the inherent powers by this Court. Within the scope of section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. July 3,2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) 3