IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 29 of 2009 Date of decision: 30. 3. 2009 Nimmo Devi …..Petitioner Versus Vijay Kumar ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For respondent : None. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) In petition No. 172-3/2004, learned trial court allowed the petition of the petitioners herein seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby each of the petitioners was awarded the amount of Rs. 800/- per month from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 19.11.2004. The interim amount of maintenance @ 1000/- per month awarded earlier was ordered to be set-off. Respondent challenged the above order of the learned trial Magistrate before the learned Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 6- 9/X/2007. While maintaining the order of maintenance, the learned Sessions Judge taking into consideration the income of respondent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - reduced the amount to the tune of Rs. 600/- per month to the wife and Rs. 400/- per month to each of the minor-petitioners. While reducing the amount of maintenance learned Revisional Court below further took note of the fact from the evidence on record that the petitioners herein were living in the house of the petitioner and were also in possession of portion of his holding deriving income therefrom. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reason for reducing the maintenance amount was unreasonable and based upon the unfounded facts. But it is pertinent to note that the petitioners nowhere stated either in the petition nor in their statements that how much expenses are required to be met for the education, food etc. to them and more particularly when they have been living in the house of the respondent and getting income from his holding. In my considered opinion, reducing the amount of maintenance is founded on established facts on record which cannot be called perverse thus requires no interference in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court, as such the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are left at liberty to seek increase in the maintenance allowance as per the provisions of Section 127 of - 3 - the Code of Criminal Procedure if circumstances so warrant. The matter stands disposed of. March 30, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (cm)