IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 602 of 2005 Shyam Singh Negi S/o Late Rai Singh Negi R/o Village Khatiyari, P.O. Nainisain, Patti Kapiri District Chamoli, Uttarakhand. ……..…Applicant Versus 1. Smt. Jagdamba Devi W/o Shri Shyam Singh R/o Village Khatiyari P.O. Kandara (Nainisain) Tehsil Karanprayag, District Chamoli Presently residing with her daughter Maheshwari at Gopeshwar. P.S. Gopeshwar, District Chamoli 2. District and Sessions Judge, Chamoli District Chamoli 3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli District Chamoli 4. State of Uttarakhand ....……Respondents Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the respondent no. 4. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 2 1973 (for short Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 06.08.2005, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in criminal revision no. 4 of 2005, Shyam Singh vs. Jagdamba Devi, whereby order dated 17.12.2004, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, in criminal misc. case no. 43 of 2003, is modified and the petitioner is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1, 500/- per month to his wife (respondent no. 1) 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married to the respondent no. 1 Jagdamba Devi in the year 1972. A daughter was born out of the wed- lock. However, after 8 years of marriage, it is alleged by respondent no. 1 that her husband started having illicit relations with one Sushila Devi. This made difficult for her to stay with the petitioner. It is pleaded by her that the petitioner neglected to maintain the respondent no. 1 and her daughter. It is further pleaded by her that the petitioner gets Rs. 5,000/- per month as pension. With 3 these pleadings application under section 125 of Cr.P.C, was moved by the respondent no. 1 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, which was registered as criminal misc. case no. 42 of 2003. 4. After recording evidence, and hearing the parties Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli at Gopeshwar, allowed application under section 125 Cr.P.C, and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month. Aggrieved by said order petitioner filed criminal revision no. 4 of 2005, before Sessions Judge, Chamoli. Said court vide its impugned order dated 06.08.2005, reduced the maintenance to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Now the petitioner has filed this petition challenging both the orders passed by the courts below. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner got married to the respondent no. 1 Jagdamba Devi. It is also not disputed that a daughter named Maheshwari born out of the wed -lock. The defence taken by the petitioner before the courts below is that in the earlier round of litigation initiated in the year 1978, by respondent no. 1 Jagdamba Devi, which was 4 registered as misc. criminal case no. 181 of 1978, a compromise was entered between the parties on 03.11.1997, and the respondent no. 1 was given a house and cow-shed to live apart with a piece of land on which she could cultivate. The petitioner denied before courts below that he has deserted the respondent no. 1. Both the courts below after discussing the evidence on record found that the respondent no. 1 is unable to maintain herself and the petitioner has neglected her in maintaining. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a retired forester. He admitted that his pension is Rs. 3,471/- per month. Not only this he further admitted that he owns a jeep which he gets run for commercial purposes through his driver. In the circumstances adding Rs. 2,000/- per month to the pension admittedly received by the petitioner, the trial court calculated the income of the petitioner at Rs. 5,417/- per month. With these findings the Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- which was reduced by the revisional court to Rs. 1,500/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a retired person 5 and Rs. 1,500/- per month is excessive amount which the petitioner is unable to pay to his wife. However, having gone through the papers on record, in the above circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Chamoli). 7. Therefore, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C, is dismissed and the interim order dated 12.09.2005, stands automatically vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. Dt:20.05.2010 parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)