IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 284 of 2004 Faquir Ram … Applicant Vs State of Uttaranchal & 2 others … Respondents Sri Amit Kapri, Advocate, holding Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.03.2004 passed in Criminal Case No. 74 of 2002 as well as judgment and order dated 07.06.2004 passed in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2004 by learned Special Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pithoragarh and learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Meena Devi, filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancing the maintenance on the allegations that her children have grown older and she herself lying ill and her husband is getting Rs. 6,000/- per month and he has also income from agriculture. In the aforesaid circumstances, the maintenance allowance be altered and raised upto Rs. 1,000/- for her and Rs. 1,000/- each to her children. The trial court issued notice to the petitioner but he did not turn up before the trial court, therefore, the trial court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 500/- each to his children vide order dated 03.03.2004. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, which was also 2 dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07.06.2004. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard Sri Amit Kapri, Advocate holding brief of Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 4. The record reveals that previously, the petitioner had been paying a sum of Rs. 400/- to his wife and Rs. 150/- each to his two children as maintenance allowance, but subsequently, in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved by the respondent No. 3, learned Magistrate vide order dated 09.09.2002 enhanced that amount and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to his wife – Smt. Meena Devi and Rs. 500/- each to his two children. 5. When the application was moved by Smt. Meena Devi, the petitioner did not appear before the trial court in spite of the sufficient service of summon. Therefore, the trial court passed ex-parte order after perusing the evidence on record, granting maintenance allowance to the wife and children of the petitioner. 6. The court below has categorically recorded a finding that the summon was served upon the petitioner personally on 11.10.2002. The next date was fixed as 02.11.2002 but the petitioner again did not appear on that day. Subsequently, in this case so many dates were fixed, but the petitioner did not appear before the court on any of the date fixed. As the summon was sufficiently served upon the petitioner, therefore, he could not take this plea before the court blow that he do 3 not have the knowledge with regard to the proceedings of the case. 7. As far as amount of maintenance is concerned, both the courts below have recorded a categorically findings that the order for the maintenance allowance was passed in the year 1997 and at that time, the children were minor and were not going to school, but by the year 2002, the children were grown up and started going to school, therefore, wife of the petitioner had to pay the expenses of the children also pertaining to their studies. Both the courts below have taken into account the income of the husband and after assessing the income of the husband, the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- for the wife and Rs. 500/- each to the two children of the petitioner. 8. I do not find any illegality, infirmity in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below, which needs no interference. I also do not find any abuse of process of court or any flagrant injustice in the impugned orders. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 11.12.2009 ASWAL