IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 46 of 2005. Date of Decision: 28.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Smt. Lotamu. ….Appellant. Versus. Tej Ram. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioner : Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent. : Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, partly allowing/reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu allowing the petition of the petitioner herein and a minor son for grant of interim maintenance. 2. The petitioner and Master-Hari Chand minor had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate on the ground that she had been neglected and turned out of the house by the respondent, who was her Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 husband. On the evidence on record, the petition filed by the petitioner herein and minor son Master Hari Chand was allowed by the learned Magistrate granting Rs. 500/- per month each as interim maintenance. 3. The respondent instituted a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who modified the order, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the maintenance. In order to arrive at this finding, the learned Judge, holds that there is no evidence to show the reason as to why the petitioner was turned out from her matrimonial home. 4. A number of points have been urged before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I am not inclined to interfere with the order at this stage since it is based on proper appreciation of the evidence by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, submission has been made by the learned counsel that even if the petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance since the maintenance is allowed to the son has not been challenged, it requires a revision as at the time of the institution of the petition, he was only three years old and now Rs.500/- is a very meager amount on which a person can sustain himself. There is force in this submission made by the learned counsel. However, for this purpose, it will be open to the petitioner to move on behalf of the minor under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for increase in the maintenance awarded to the minor who now, of course, 3 requires more money for his up keep. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 28, 2011(R)