IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.50 of 2004.. Date of Decision: 22. 07.2008. _______________________________________________________ Anil Kumar. Petitioner Versus Reeta Kumari and others. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?.No. For the Petitioner : Ms. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents. Mr. Rahul Mahajan Advocate. Surinder Singh, J.(oral) Respondents herein had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance before the learned trial Court which was allowed to the extent of rupees 400/- per month to the respondent No.1 and rupees 300/- each to the other minor respondents, which was assailed by the petitioner-husband in the revision before the Court of Sessions on the ground that the respondent-wife had withdrawn from his society of her own without any reasonable cause and failed to resume the marital ties despite repeated pursuation. He denied any earning from the shop as alleged and according to the petitioner-husband, he is not employed and has no source, therefore sought the reversal of the maintenance order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition filed by the husband thoroughly examined his case in the light of the evidence adduced on record before the trial Court but ultimately the plea raised by him did not find favour, accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. Having felt aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the orders of maintenance passed by both the courts below, the instant petition has been filed seeking the indulgence of this court on the ground that both the courts - 2 - have committed an illegality in passing the impugned orders, therefore, it deserve to be quashed and set-aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The relationship inter-se the parties is not disputed by the petitioner-husband. The respondent-wife alleged torture and demand of dowry by the petitioner and according to her, she was not given due care during her pregnancy, rather she was pressurized to meet his illegal demands and when she could not succumb to his pressure, she was turned out from the matrimonial house without any maintenance along with her children. To substantiate her version, she examined herself and other witnesses. The respondent denied the allegations of the petitioner and also tried to substantiate its case as pleaded. From the evidence on record, both the Courts found that the respondent No.1 has no source of income and she was residing in village Kadh with her children without any maintenance. The petitioner-husband has a STD booth and is running a shop. According to the respondent-wife, her husband is running a karyana shop and is earning rupees 5000/- per month. Otherwise also, the petitioner-husband is an able-bodied man and there is nothing on record to show that he did not have any capacity to earn. He is under obligation to maintain his wife and children. The amount of maintenance awarded to the respondents by the courts below is not excessive. These proceedings are summary and remedial, therefore, no interference is called for in the order dated 8.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has affirmed the order of maintenance passed by the trial Court. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 22, 2008. (bm) - 3 -