IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 87 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.10.2009 Bhagat Ram …..Petitioner Versus Sukho …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandranarayana Singh Advocate For the Respondent : None Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. and has been directed against the judgment dated 1.5.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Chamba, in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2009 vide which order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba dated 17.12.2008 has been modified and the respondent has been granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month from the date of filing of the petition in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba on 29.12.2004. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2. The facts in brief are that on 19.1.2002, the dispute between the parties was resolved and the petitioner was directed by Lok Adalat to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month to respondent w.e.f. 9.4.2001. 3. The respondent later on filed an application under Section 127 Cr. P.C. for enhancement of maintenance and claimed Rs.2000/- per month maintenance. The application was contested by the petitioner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 17.12.2008 in Criminal Petition No. 30-IV of 2005 enhanced the maintenance of respondent from Rs.350/- to Rs.1000/- from December 2008 onwards. The respondent had filed Criminal Revision No. 2/2009 against the order dated 17.12.2008 which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 1.5.2009 whereby maintenance of respondent was enhanced to Rs.1200/- per month from the date of filing the petition in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 29.12.2004. The Judgment dated 1.5.2009 has been assailed by way of present petition. 4. Heard Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had enhanced the maintenance of Rs.350/- per month to Rs.1000/- per month from December, 2008. The petitioner accepted the order of enhancement of maintenance passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The respondent was …3… aggrieved against the order dated 17.12.2008 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, she challenged that order and learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 1.5.2009 modified the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, dated 17.12.2008 as noticed above. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has other liabilities also but what amount per month is required for other liabilities that has not been elaborated. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the order dated 17.12.2008 has recorded a finding that salary of the petitioner is Rs.10,000/- and his carry home salary is Rs.7,254/-. The petitioner has not pointed out what are his deductions from the salary. The order dated 17.12.2008 was accepted by the petitioner, therefore, it can be safely held that in view of the income of the petitioner, he can easily spare Rs.1200/- per month for paying maintenance to the respondent. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had awarded the maintenance from December, 2008 onwards but enhanced amount of compensation has been ordered to be paid by the learned Additional Sessions Judge from the date when respondent had filed the application for modification of maintenance order. This part of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also not wrong. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while fixing the order from December, 2008 had given no reasons. The learned Additional …4… Sessions Judge has enhanced maintenance from the date of filing of the petition. The discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in enhancing the maintenance from the date of the petition cannot be said to be perverse or without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the impugned order on the quantum of maintenance as well as the period from which the enhanced maintenance is to be paid. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Cr.M.P. No. 472 of 2009 Infructuous. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge October 05, 2009 *brb*