IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No.220 of 2010. Date of decision: 12.5.2011 Ringzin Namgyal alias Rajan … …Petitioner Versus Smt.Parwati Devi & Another … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dismissing the revision petition preferred by him against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, granting maintenance to the respondents herein on an application preferred by them under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 2. The respondents had approached the learned trial Court on the allegations that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in October, 2005 in accordance with the custom governing the parties. From the said wedlock, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 respondent No.2 was born. After 3/4 months of the marriage, the petitioner started maltreating and harassing the respondent for dowry etc. He stopped providing food, clothes to her and on 26.1.2008 this respondent was beaten up by the petitioner and his family members and thrown out of the matrimonial home. Proceedings under Section 498-A IPC have also been instituted. 3. The petition was resisted on a number of grounds including the fact that the respondent had no reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the petitioner. He was not earning anything etc. Learned trial Court rejected these submissions and proceeded to award maintenance to both the respondents. She was awarded a sum of Rs.1500/- per month and respondent No.2 was awarded Rs.1000/- per month. Revision preferred was rejected by the learned revisional Court. 4. In this revision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that the Courts below have not considered the evidence and the findings are perverse. Most important, it is urged that the petitioner has no means to maintain the respondents which fact has been totally ignored. It is also urged that there is no reasonable or justifiable excuse for respondent No.1 to withdraw from the company of the husband. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the judgments of both 3 the Courts below and do not find that this would be a case which would call for intervention of this Court. Two Courts having concurrently found in favour of the respondents, negating each and every contentions raised by the petitioner, I cannot see any reason to interfere with the findings of the fact. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. May 12, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.