1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 81 of 2009 . Judgment reserved on 07.12.2011. Date of decision: 08.12.2011. Ram Chand, S/o Sh. Sundru, R/o Village Sampal, P.O. Showad Phati Bishladhar, Tehsil Anni, Distt. Kullu, H.P. ......Petitioner. Versus Smt. Vidhya Devi, W/o Sh. Ram Chand, R/o Village Sampal,P.O. Showad Phati Bishladhar, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P., presently residing at Village Kaderna, P.O. Lagauti, Tehsil Anni, Distt. Kullu,H.P. ......Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Rita Goswami, Advocate. Kuldip Singh , Judge. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.04.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr in Revision Petition No. 16 of 2008 affirming order dated 05.08.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Karsog, in Case No. 8-4 of 2007. The petition was,in fact, filed as revision, but registered as Cr.MMO. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance at the rate of `3,000/- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 per month from the petitioner. It has been stated that the marriage of the parties was solemnized in the last week of August, 2000. In the beginning, the petitioner kept the respondent properly. After six months, petitioner and his family members started maltreating the respondent. The petitioner started coming home under the influence of liquor. He harassed and tortured the respondent mentally. He also levelled false allegations against the respondent. 3. In October, 2006, petitioner forcibly ousted respondent from matrimonial home. He developed illicit relations with one Sita Devi, who started living with him. The petitioner is not providing any maintenance to respondent, who has no means to maintain herself. The petitioner is earning from his land and orchard more than `15,000/- per month and he can easily spare `3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. 4. The petition was contested by petitioner by filing reply in which preliminary objection of maintainability has been taken. It has been stated that respondent without any reasonable cause and sufficient reasons has withdrawn from the company of petitioner. On merits, the marriage between the parties has been admitted. The misbehaviour on the part of the petitioner and his family members has been denied. It has been denied that petitioner maltreated the respondent and returns home under the influence of liquor. The respondent wants luxurious life- style which cannot be provided by petitioner, who is a poor man. It has been alleged that respondent has extra-marital affairs with other males of the area, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It has been denied that petitioner has developed illicit relations with Sita Devi. 3 5. The rejoinder was filed and on the pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the monthly maintenance from the respondent at the rate of `3000/- per month as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent? OPR. 3. Whether the petitioner is living in adultery? OPR. 4. Final Order. The point No.1 was answered in affirmative and points No.2 and 3 in negative. The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate allowed ` 1,000/- per month maintenance in favour of respondent and against the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 08.01.2007. In revision, learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. AW-1 Vidhya Devi has stated that after the marriage she lived with the petitioner. Initially, the behaviour of the petitioner was proper with her for about 1 ½ years. Thereafter, he started quarrelling with her. She is living with her parents for the last 1 ½ years. The petitioner has not given any maintenance to her during this period. The behaviour of the petitioner during her stay with him was not good and, therefore, she left the matrimonial home. She has stated that her parents are maintaining her, who themselves are very poor. The petitioner is owner of 15 bighas of land having an apple orchard with annual income `35,000-40,000/- from the orchard. The petitioner is earning `15,000-20,000/- per month. In cross-examination, 4 she has denied that she is not ready to return to her matrimonial home. She has denied that of her free will she is residing with her parents. She has denied that petitioner is a poor man. 7. AW-2 Ram Lal has stated that respondent these days is living with her parents for the last 1 ½ years. The petitioner is earning ` 20,000-30,000/- per month. He is owner of sufficient land. He grows crops and apples. The respondent is not living with petitioner as petitioner gives her beatings after consuming liquor. The petitioner has kept another woman. The respondent has no source of income. In cross-examination, he has stated that respondent is his father's sister. He has stated that no beatings were given by the petitioner in his presence. 8. RW-1 Ram Chand has stated that after marriage, he had proper relations with respondent for about 5 years. Thereafter, respondent developed illicit relations with Lal Singh, who has since died. She then developed illicit relations with Subhash Chand. She also had illicit relations with Raju. The respondent used to go out of the house without his consent. The respondent started living with her parents and for the last 1 ½ years respondent is living with her brother. He has no source of income. RW-2 Var Chand has stated that respondent lived with petitioner for 5 years after the marriage. Thereafter, she started living here and there. She developed relations with others. 9. It is common case of the parties that respondent at the time of filing the petition was living with her parents. The petitioner has projected the case that respondent developed illicit relations with 5 several persons,but petitioner has failed to prove this allegation. The respondent has taken the stand that initially the petitioner kept her properly for some time, but thereafter he kept one woman Sita Devi and started maltreating the respondent. The petitioner being the husband of the respondent is under legal obligation to maintain the respondent. It has come on record that during the stay of respondent with her parents, the petitioner did not maintain her nor led any evidence to show that he gave any money to respondent for maintenance during this period. 10. The respondent is not expected to live with the petitioner when petitioner has levelled unfounded allegations of illicit relations of respondent with others. The petitioner under the garb of these allegations, without proof, cannot avoid maintenance to the respondent. The petitioner has means to maintain the respondent. The respondent has no source of income. 11. The two Courts below have appreciated the evidence on record. The maintenance of `1,000/- per month from the date of application these days in the facts and circumstances of the case is not on the higher side. The petitioner has already lost in revision before the learned Sessions Judge. The present petition cannot be treated as second appeal or revision nor evidence can be reappreciated. There is no perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition. 12. In view of above discussion, petition fails and is dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ), December 8, 2011 Judge. (Krt)