IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. Nos.61 and 71 of 2010. Date of decision: 19.10.2010. 1. Cr.M.M.O. No.61 of 2010. Randeep Singh Parmar … …Petitioner Versus Ishita Parmar … …Respondent 2. Cr.M.M.O. No.71 of 2010. Ishita Parmar … …Petitioner Versus Randeep Singh Parmar … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. Cr.M.M.O. No.61 of 2010. For the Petitioner: Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. Cr.M.M.O. No.71 of 2010. For the Petitioner: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Both these revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in revisional proceedings challenging the order of grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Criminal Procedure to Ishita Parmar minor daughter of Randeep Parmar. In Cr.M.M.O. No.61 of 2001, the father of the minor, challenges the grant of maintenance and in Cr.M.M.O.No.71 of 2010 a prayer is made for enhancement of the amount granted. 2. The minor Ishita Parmar instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through her mother Smt.Kanta Parmar praying for grant of maintenance on the ground that after the solemnization of her marriage with petitioner herein on 9.2.1995, Ishita was born on 13.11.1995. 3. The allegation is that both the mother and child were abandoned and deserted by the petitioner herein in October, 1997. It was pleaded that Ishita was admitted to Auckland School, Shimla, by her mother who is looking after her education and maintenance which has been denied to her by the petitioner herein. It is further pleaded that he is having sufficient income from his profession as an Advocate and from agricultural land etc. On the evidence on record, the Court held that Ishita was entitled to maintenance and proceeded to award Rs.5,000/- per month for her up keep and education etc. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the mother was working in the Tourism Development Corporation, but the petitioner herein, was earning substantial amount from his profession as also from agricultural income etc. These findings were challenged before the learned Sessions 3 Judge, Shimla in revisional proceeding which again re- appreciated the entire evidence including the earning capacity etc. of the parties. Revision petition was dismissed. 4. This judgment has been challenged by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court on the ground that the order is the result of the misreading and misinterpretation of oral and documentary evidence. One of the grounds urged is that her mother has ample money to look after the child and therefore, no amount of compensation should be granted. In the other petition, the daughter challenges the quantum of the maintenance awarded. 6. The points as urged in this petition have already been adjudicated upon/decided by the Courts below on a detailed examination of the evidence. The findings of fact arrived at cannot be disturbed in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution as I do not find any error of jurisdiction or perversity in the order. Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed. October 19, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.