The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance to the wife, considering his financial means and the wife's circumstances.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The present criminal revision petition is maintained by the petitioner, who is husband of the respondent, challenging order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 27-S/10 of 14/12, whereby the order dated 27.12.2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, in Case No. 136-4 of 2010/2009, was modified.

2. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner and the respondent, herein, are husband and wife. Initially, the wife maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor child, which was allowed and they were granted maintenance @ Rs.300/- and @ Rs.200/- per month, respectively, vide judgment dated 04.06.1992. The maintenance amount was enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide order dated 09.04.1996, and maintenance amount @ Rs.500/- and Rs.300/- per month, respectively, was granted to the wife and son. Subsequently, on 14.01.2004, the wife maintained an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., seeking further enhancement of maintenance amount, which was also allowed and maintenance allowance @ Rs.3000/- was granted. The wife again maintained a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance amount, which was allowed, vide order dated 27.12.2011, and maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month was enhanced to Rs.6000/- per month. The order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, was further assailed by the wife, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of the learned First Revisional Court, wherein she pleaded that the maintenance amount, as awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, is inadequate. The learned First Revisional Court, vide order dated 11.11.2014, modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. VI, Shimla, and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs.6000/- to Rs.8000/- per month, from the date of filing of the petition. Thus, through the present petition, the husband, by invoking revisionary jurisdiction of this Court, has challenged the order dated 11.11.2014, passed by the learned First Revisional Court.

3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Revisional Court without appreciating the facts, which have come on record, has enhanced the maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and that order is required to be set-aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no revision was filed by the petitioner (husband) against the order passed by the learned Trial Court granting maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month and the present petition is not maintainable. He has further argued that the petitioner is a man of means, he has big chunk of land and money in his account, therefore, he is liable to pay maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner (wife), which was awarded by the learned Revisional Court. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that the petitioner is not liable to pay such a big amount as now he has retired from service and only drawing meager amount as pension.

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record carefully.

6. It is emanating from the record that the respondent-wife was not looked after by the petitioner- husband and that is why she was forced to file a petition against him, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance. Subsequently, the learned Revisional Court has enhanced her maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month.

7. The learned Trial Court granted maintenance to the respondent-wife @ Rs.6,000/- per month and that order was not challenged by the petitioner-husband, meaning thereby the petitioner-husband was not aggrieve