1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 21 of 2004. Date of Decision: July 18, 2008. ____________________________________________________________ Dev Raj. Petitioner. Versus Parveen Sharma and another. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. S.D. Vasudeva. ______________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner-husband has assailed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in Criminal Revision No.15-B/02, decided on 4.11.2003, whereby he affirmed the order of the maintenance passed by the learned trial court in the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By way of the present petition, the orders of both the courts below have been assailed, on the ground that these are based upon the facts contrary to the record, which has caused miscarriage of justice. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of both the courts below. As a matter of fact, the respondent No.1 the wife of the petitioner herein had filed the petition under Section 125 of the Code Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor child, on the ground that she was being maltreated by her husband and her husband pushed her many times out of the matrimonial home and during the night, she had to spent nights outside the house in the odd hours. Though she went on to tolerate it for some time, but did not prevail upon for her husband and in the last week of March, 1992, she was given severe beatings by him and he threatened her to kill. She was told not to show her face again. Since she was turned out from the matrimonial house, without any reasonable ground, therefore, she claimed maintenance for herself and for the minor child. The relationship of the husband, wife and the paternity of the minor child has not been denied by the petitioner-husband. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial court had rightly found the respondents entitled for the maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month ( to the wife ) and Rs.300/- per month to the minor child from the date of petition, which are assailed in the revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who after going through the evidence dismissed the petition. Hence the instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the impugned orders are perverse, therefore, require to be set-aside. I have gone through the orders passed by both the courts below. These are based upon the facts. The concurrent findings of facts unless perverse causing the abuse of process of law cannot be 3 interfered with. I did not find any perversity therein, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with it. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Send down the records. July 18th,2008. (Surinder Singh) ( Pds ) Judge.