IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Manish Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus Ravita Kashyap ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ___________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioner challenges the award of maintenance to the wife in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the allegations made in the petition that the petitioner was turned out from the matrimonial house on 24.1.2008, without any reasonable cause. She is residing with her sister as the petitioner herein has failed to maintain her. On the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. This order was challenged in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who dismissed the petition after re-appreciating the entire facts on record. The 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 award has been challenged on a number of grounds including the ground that the question of desertion by the wife has not been properly determined by the Courts below. The quantum award has also been challenged. 2. On the first aspect of the matter, I find that the learned Court has correctly appreciated the evidence, which consisted of the statement of petitioner and though she been subjected to lengthy cross examination, no material fact has been elicited/established which favours the petitioner. On the question of salary, the learned Court holds that the evidence on record established that the salary of the petitioner was more than Rs. 9,000/- per month. Thus, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge October 22nd , 2010(ms)