IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 110 of 2006 Decided on: 17.3.2009. _________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar …….. Petitioner Versus Smt.Anjubala …….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner :Mr.Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondent :Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner has felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, passed in Criminal Revision No.15-D/X - 2006, on 20.10.2006 whereby the revision petition filed by the respondent-wife was allowed and her prayer for the maintenance amount was awarded @ of Rs.800/- per month from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner-husband was also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/- to his wife. The records of the courts below were requisitioned and the learned counsel for the parties heard. _______________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?. Yes. - 2 - It is contended by Shri Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-wife has taken customary divorce and the matter was finally settled, which fact was overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge and further that the petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month whereas the maintenance awarded was disproportionate, thus the order impugned is unreasonable. Contra Shri Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have examined the record. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. On perusing the record, I find that the learned Sessions Judge reappraised the evidence as the learned trial Court on the material before him had come to wrong conclusion which is a question of law, which could be appreciated and decided in revision. The wrong conclusion arrived at by the Magistrate caused the miscarriage of justice. On the reappraisal of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that the respondent-wife was not living separately on account of her own free will, but under the forced circumstances. In - 3 - my opinion, the learned trial Magistrate placed undue reliance on the statements of the parties recorded by the police earlier to hold that the respondent was residing separately from the husband of her own accord. From the evidence on record, the willful refusal and neglect by the petitioner to maintain his wife is writ large. Further the petitioner-husband is working as Conductor in a private Transport and his income has been proved to be Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the respondent-wife is a destitute with no income to sustain herself. The customary divorce alleged to have been obtained on 16.9.2006, was neither pleaded nor brought to the notice of learned Sessions Judge during the pendency of the revision petition before him, therefore, it cannot be taken cognizance at this stage. Accordingly the petition is devoid of merits. There is no error of judgment, abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction while exercising the powers by the learned Sessions Judge, in awarding the maintenance amount to the respondent-wife, therefore, the petition is dismissed. Cr.M.P.No.554/08. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application has become infructuous. March 17,2009. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge. - 4 -