IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 35 of 2004. Date of Decision: 21. 07.2008. _______________________________________________________ Mohan Singh. . Petitioner Versus Leela Devi. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?.No For the Petitioner : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the respondent No. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J.(oral) Learned trial Court awarded the amount of rupees 400/- per month to the respondent-wife which was up-held by learned Sessions Judge vide his detailed order dated 28-2-2004 in revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband. The order of maintenance passed by both the courts below has been assailed in this petition on the ground that earlier also, the petitioner had moved similar petition claiming maintenance for herself and on behalf of children. The trial Court had granted the maintenance to the children but declined to the respondent-wife. Secondly, the petitioner-husband had filed a divorce petition which was allowed by learned District Judge but in appeal before the High Court, the matter was compromised in FAO No. 277 of 1997 and the respondent-wife agreed to join the matrimonial house of the petitioner but suddenly, for living about seven days in the company of the petitioner-husband, she left the matrimonial house in the odd hours of the night and also lodged the F.I.R. in Police Station, Dhalli under Section 498- A, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore the second petition for maintenance was not maintainable, because there was no change in the circumstances. - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is a fact that earlier petition seeking maintenance by the respondent-wife was dismissed but thereafter the petitioner had filed the divorce petition which was allowed and in appeal, the decree of divorce was set-aside as the parties conciled the matter. The respondent-wife started living with her husband, it was thereafter, their relations got strained again. The respondent-wife has testified in her statement that the petitioner- husband again started maltreating her and demanded dowry. She along with her brother went to the Police Station and lodged the report. She has further stated that she stayed with the petitioner-husband for about three months. She was beaten by the petitioner-husband. He had also filed the case seeking custody of the children. She produced her witnesses to substantiate the above fact. As RW1, the petitioner-husband has stated that many times, he had gone to call the respondent to resume the matrimonial times but she did not return, she has abandoned his company without any reasonable cause. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the complaint Exhibit PW1/A was lodged by the respondent-wife against him, thereafter he had lodged a complaint against her. On the close scrutiny of the record, I did not find that there was no change in the circumstances. From the pleadings of the petitioner himself, it is evident that the second application for maintenance was filed on fresh cause of action which stands substantiated. The petitioner-husband is employed in Irrigation and Public Health Department. From the record, it appears that the petitioner has refused and neglected to maintain his wife without any reasonable cause whereas legally he is liable to maintain her. The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary and remedial in nature which are meant to provide the maintenance to the wife and the children without any un-necessary delay. . On the scrutiny of the evidence and for the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any perversity in the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge - 3 - up-holding the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 21, 2008. (bm)