IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2003. Judgment reserved on : 19.5.2009. Date of decision: May 28, 2009. Gulaba Ram …Petitioner. Versus Reshamu ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the Respondent. Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The husband has filed this petition against the order dated 21.2.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2001 allowing maintenance to respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from 23.1.1998 to 24.9.2001 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. 2. The respondent had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month on the ground that she was married to petitioner 25 years back in accordance with Hindu rites, two sons and one daughter were born ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 to respondent from her union with petitioner. The petitioner was transferred to Karsog and when he returned after 20 years, he came with another lady Hema Devi and one son. Lateron respondent came to know that petitioner had married with Hema Devi and one son was born to Hema Devi from petitioner. The petitioner married with Hema Devi during the subsistence of marriage of respondent with petitioner, hence marriage of petitioner with Hema Devi is void. The petitioner refused to maintain the respondent. The respondent had been living separately. The petitioner was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month by serving as Foreman with H.P.State Electricity Board, on these grounds the respondent had filed petition on 23.1.1998. 3. The petitioner contested the petition and admitted his marriage with respondent which took place in February, 1966. The petitioner alleged that respondent lived with petitioner for one year and thereafter, she developed intimacy with one Kirpu Ram and started living with him. The respondent had refused to join the company of the petitioner and she completely severed matrimonial alliance with the petitioner. It was pleaded that Veena Devi daughter, born from the union of the petitioner and respondent, was married by the petitioner. Madan Lal and Babu Ram were not born to respondent from petitioner, rather they were born to respondent from Kirpu Ram. The respondent had been working in the bank and earning Rs.2000/- per month. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur held that there was divorce between the parties, the respondent is in a position to maintain herself and dismissed the petition. In revision, 3 the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur allowed the revision on 21.2.2003 and awarded maintenance to respondent, as noticed above; hence husband has filed the petition. 5. Heard and perused the record. The learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that the petitioner had been in employment and is in receipt of Rs.10,000/- per month, in any case, and had also been in possession of agriculture holding, he could not evade the responsibility of providing maintenance to his wife simply on the ground that she was also earning Rs.1468.54 paise per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has since retired and in application being Cr.M.P. No.436 of 2008, it has been stated that the petitioner is in receipt of Rs.6919/- per month pension. The respondent in her reply to Cr.M.P. No.436 of 2008 has stated that she is in receipt of Rs.2142/- per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month awarded by the learned Sessions Judge to the respondent is on the higher side keeping in view the income of the petitioner, who is about 65 years of age. It is the case of the respondent that petitioner has married with Hema Devi and has also one son from her. RW-1 Gulaba Ram in his statement given in the Court on 3.5.2000 has given the age of that boy 12 years. Thus, now he is major and petitioner is not under obligation to maintain him. The petitioner has moral obligation to support Hema Devi. In any case the petitioner is under legal obligation to maintain respondent, who has been proved to be her legally wedded wife. 4 6. The income of the petitioner from pension is Rs.6919/-, the respondent in her reply to Cr.M.P.No.436 of 2008 has not stated that petitioner has any income from any source other than the pension. In these circumstances, it can be safely assumed that the income of the petitioner is only from pension which is Rs.6919/- per month. The respondent is receiving Rs.2142/- from her employment with the bank. In case Rs.900/- per month are added in the salary of the respondent then her income becomes Rs. 3042/- (Rs.2142 + Rs.900/-) per month. After deducting Rs.900/- per month from Rs.6919/-, the amount remains in the hands of the petitioner only Rs.6019/- (Rs.6919 - Rs.900), which petitioner and Hema Devi can share. In other words, their share comes to approximately Rs.3009/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is entitled to Rs.900/- per month from petitioner from the date of decision of this case. The petitioner prior to the date of decision of this petition shall be liable to pay maintenance to respondent in the manner and at the rate fixed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. It is needless to state that in case of change of circumstance, liberty is given to respondent to approach this Court for modification of this order. In light of above, the impugned order deserves modification. 7. No other point was urged. 8. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be liable to pay Rs.900/- per month maintenance to the respondent w.e.f. 28.5.2009, the date of decision of this petition and prior to 28.5.2009, the petitioner shall be liable to 5 pay maintenance to the respondent in the manner and at the rate as held by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 21.2.2003. The respondent is given liberty to approach this Court for modification of this order in case of change of circumstances, with these observations, the petition stands disposed of. May 28, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (GR) Judge.