IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.14 of 2009 Date of decision: 06. 04. 2009 Smt. Simro Devi …..Petitioner Versus Sh. Onkar Singh ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For respondent None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Cr.M.P.(M) No. 88/2009. There is 53 days delay in filing the revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner which, in my opinion, prima facie constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay as such the application is allowed. The delay in filling the revision petition is condoned. The application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 14/2009 Learned trial court had awarded the amount of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner-wife in case No. 90-IV/2000 vide order dated 19.3.2000, from her respondent-husband from the date of the petition. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - In criminal petition No. 125-IV/2003 moved under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement, the monthly maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of the application i.e. 26.7.2003 by the trial court. The respondent-husband challenged the order of enhancement by filing the revision petition No. 43-K/2005 decided on 22.9.2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala finding four times unjustifiable increase in three years of the order of maintenance, reduced the amount to Rs. 1000/- per month beside it took note of the admission of petitioner-wife that she was residing in the house of respondent-husband along with her adult son and was in cultivating possession of the land in village Samloti and she was earning therefrom. The respondent-husband is in the police service and has settled in another village named Baroi. Thus, the position emerges that the landed property and ancestral house of the respondent- husband in village Samloti are in actual physical possession of the petitioner-wife out of which she was earning the income for her livelihood. The petitioner has not proved on record what were her basic requirements for which higher amount than awarded was required to be paid to her. - 3 - Considering the contentions made in the petition and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as such the petition is dismissed. April, 6, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)