IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 270 of 2011 Decided on: September 21, 2011. Jai Singh. …….Petitioner. Versus Smt. Khimi. …….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate For the respondent: Ms. Leena Guleria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/husband against the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act vide which the amount of permanent alimony was increased from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the respondent (herein after referred to as wife) filed a petition against the present petitioner, i.e. husband, for enhancement of permanent alimony granted to her. The previous alimony was fixed at Rs. 350/- per month, as per the compromise in the year, 1998. The respondent/wife filed the petition for enhancement and after taking the evidence, the learned trial Court passed the order enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 1,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the husband. 3. One of the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence. The 2 perusal of the record shows that the first date fixed for respondent’s evidence was 15.3.2008, since the petitioner had closed his evidence on 2.1.2008. On 15.3.2008, it was observed by the learned trial Court that no RWs were present, nor steps taken, thereafter the case was fixed for 1.5.2008, on which date it was reported that no RWS were present nor steps taken and the case was adjourned to 1.7.2008. Thereafter on 1.7.2008, one Patwari was present, but his statement was not recorded and no reasons have been given by the Court as to why the witness was discharged. It is, therefore, clear that two dates had already been given prior to 1.7.2008 for the evidence of the respondent. Thereafter the case was fixed for respondent’s evidence on 22.10.2008, on which date one witness was recorded and the case was adjourned for remaining evidence for 27.11.2008. Thereafter, the case was fixed several times for proper orders and finally on 30.10.2009 the order was passed by the Court fixing the case for evidence of the petitioner on self responsibility. It was clear to the parties that the petitioner had already closed his evidence and the case was being fixed for evidence of the respondent and inadvertently the Court wrote that the case is fixed for remaining evidence of the petitioner. On the next date, no evidence of respondent was present and the Court observed that many opportunities have given to lead evidence and therefore, the evidence of the respondent was closed and the case was disposed of after hearing the arguments. 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that no sufficient opportunities were given to the respondent to lead evidence. 2-3 dates have been given, but the respondent failed to produce his evidence. A prayer has been made that since no appropriate opportunities were given, it should be given to the respondents. In view of the fact that the present petition was filed on 25.9.2004 and was disposed of by the Court on 11.4.2011, there is no justification to further delay the matter and these proceedings are of summary nature and sufficient opportunities had 3 been given to the respondent to led evidence. I had suggested the learned counsel for the petitioner that one opportunity, as prayed by him, could be granted subject to the fact that the order of maintenance passed by the learned trial Court shall be maintained till the matter is considered afresh by the learned trial Court, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has not agreed. 5. Keeping in view the fact that the amount of maintenance was granted in the year, 1998 and after 12 years, the price of essential commodities had gone high and the learned trial Court has considered the income of the respondent/petitioner and had come to a right conclusion that the permanent alimony deserves to be enhanced from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of application. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. September 21, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (krs) Judge.