IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: Cr.MMO. No. 29/2009. Date of Decision:6.5.2009 Inder Singh …Petitioner. Versus: Kaushlaya Devi. …Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?Yes For the appellant: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Nidhi Chawla, Advocate. Surinder Singh,J(Oral) The respondent herein is admittedly a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She has two adult sons living with the husband. Precisely, according to her the petitioner-husband had been maltreating and torturing her and she was finally ousted from her matrimonial house. Thus she took shelter in the house of her parents and other relations and moved an application for seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner-husband denied the allegations. According to him, she used to leave her matrimonial house without informing him and had been living in adultery with one Jiwa Nand son of Ram Lal resident of village Pangawan, Tehsil Sadar, Kullu. Her search warrants were obtained by him and she was found in the house of Jiwa Nand and without any reasonable Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 cause refused to live with him. Both the parties led their evidence and the plea of the respondent-wife did not find favour with the learned trial Court as such her petition was dismissed. She filed the Revision Petition No. 5 of 2008 challenging the orders of dismissal. After considering the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kullu, reversed the findings of the learned trial Court, while allowing her petition the monthly allowance to the tune of Rs.800/- was awarded which has been assailed in this petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In fact, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the main object of these proceedings is to provide a speedy relief to the wife, children and the parents who are unable to maintain themselves. In the instant case, the petitioner-husband has alleged adultery but he failed to substantiate this plea. In his cross-examination he stated that pursuant to the search warrant issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the respondent-wife was taken into custody by the police from outside the Court when she had come to attend the court. He also admitted that she was not recovered from the house of Jiwa Nand. Thus the basic defence taken by him got shattered. Further when she was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate she alleged the maltreatment from her husband thus refused to live with him. These facts are apparent 3 from the documents Ext. RW1/A, Ext.RW1/B and Ext.RW1/C produced by the petitioner-husband in evidence before the trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the above facts and rightly held that the respondent-wife was justified not to live with her husband-petitioner in view of the specific unproved allegation of adultery and after considering the income of both the parties, awarded an amount of Rs.800/- per month to her, which in my opinion is neither unjustifiable nor excessive, therefore no interference is called for in the impugned order, as such the petition is dismissed in limine. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 6, 2009(R)