The main legal point established in the judgment is that the quantum of maintenance must be determined based on the financial status of the parties, the reasonable needs of the dependant spouse and children, and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance.

JUDGMENT

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Cr.Mp No. 1013 of 2021

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the main petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Cr.MMO No. 282 of 2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month each awarded to petitioner's wife and daughter in the year 2010 in proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/-, respectively vide impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur on 11.9.2020 in a revision petition arising out of proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C.. This order is in question in the present petition.

2. Facts.

2(i) The respondents filed petition No. 19/2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The petition was compromised before Lok Adalat on 18.12.2010 and maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month each was awarded to the respondents from the date of award.

2(ii) Six years later, on 13.12.2016 the respondents moved an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount to Rs.20,000/- per month each. The enhancement in the maintenance was prayed on the ground that cost of living had increased manifolds, price index had gone up and that the respondents were facing difficulty to maintain their ends meet with the meager maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month each. Respondent No. 2 was a student of sixth class at the time of filing the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and it was pleaded that she was studying in a private school and also taking tuitions. Therefore, need to enhance the maintenance amount was emphasized. It was also stated that the petitioner was posted as Senior Branch Manager in Punjab National Bank and drawing salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It was also alleged that he had not even paid the maintenance amount for the last two years. The respondents submitted that they had no other source of income and, therefore, prayed for enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- per month each (earlier awarded to them) to Rs.20,000/- per month each.

2(iii) The petitioner, who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 denied any liability to pay the claimed enhancement. He stated that respondent No. 1 was an able bodied lady and doing private job. He also took up a defence of having loan liability of Rs.23.62 lacs. The petitioner also claimed that he had filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court for declaration that respondent No. 1 was not his legally wedded wife.

2(iv) The parties led evidence. After appreciating the pleadings, evidence and hearing the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur vide order dated 1.8.2018 enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month for respondent No. 1 (petitioner's wife) and from Rs.2000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month for respondent No. 2 (petitioner's daughter). The enhancement was ordered from the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner challenged this order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find any substantial error in the findings of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month enhanced by learned trial court in favour of petitioner's daughter was reduced to Rs.12,000/- per month. Rest of the order passed by the learned trial count was not interfered. Aggrieved against the enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded in favour of the respondents, petitioner has filed the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no proof on record to show that respondent No. 1 was legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Therefore, no maintenance could have been awarded in her favour. Next he submits that the petitioner has loan liability of around Rs.24 lacs whreas respondent No. 1 is doing private job. Considering these