IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 35 of 2002 Decided on: April 8, 2009. __________________________________________________ Jia Lal Petitioner. Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and another. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, vice counsel Mr. M.S.Thakur, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The respondent No.1 Kamla Devi had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking the maintenance for herself and also for her minor children, namely Vikram Singh and Kumari Sapna from the petitioner-husband. The relationship inter-se the parties stands admitted. After leading the evidence by both the parties, the learned trial court declined the maintenance to Vikram Singh, on the ground that he was residing with the ________________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. - 2 - petitioner-husband, however, allowed the maintenance to the respondents Kamla Devi and Sapna @ Rs.300/- each per month. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, the instant revision petition has been filed, on the grounds that the learned trial court did not discuss the evidence on record and more specifically the statement of the petitioner-husband, wherein he has categorically stated that the minor petitioner Sapna was also residing with him and the wife Kamla Devi was an accused and facing the murder trial of her brother-in-law and has sufficient income to maintain herself from the property given to her by her father. Heard and gone through the record. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial court has only given the substance of the deposition of witnesses in his order and without appreciating their statements, he jumped to the conclusion that the respondents herein were willfully neglected to be maintained by the petitioner- husband. The impugned order is lacking reasons and appears to have been passed without application of mind, therefore, it is indefensible, as such set-aside. The case is - 3 - remanded back to the learned trial court with a direction that after hearing both the parties, it shall give clear cut findings after discussing the evidence of parties with respect to the entitlement, if any, to seek maintenance by the respondents herein. Parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial court on 6.5.2009. Send down the records. April 8, 2009. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.