The eligibility for maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and the limitations on the power of the Additional Sessions Judge to enhance maintenance without a revision petition.

1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the order dated 10-2-1999, passed by the Judicial Magistrate and also challenging the order dated 17-7-2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the revision petition and upholding the order dated 10-2-1999 passed by the learned Magistrate.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of the present petition, are that Smt. Krishna wife of Gopi, Jasbir and Raj Kumar, minor sons of Gopi filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against their husband/father, namely Gopi, for the grant of maintenance to them. The said petition was filed on 19-5-1997. In the petition, it was alleged that the marriage of Smt. Krishna and Gopi had taken place in the year 1989 and that Jasbir and Raj Kumar, minors were born out of the said marriage and that they were aged about 6 years and 4 years respectively. It was alleged that Smt. Krishna and minor children were thrown out by Gopi about two years back and since then, they were residing with the parents of Smt. Krishna. It was alleged that they had no source of livelihood to maintain themselves. On the other hand, it was alleged that Gopi, Peon, in the Co-operative Bank, was earning Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. It was accordingly prayed that maintenance of Rs. 1,000.00 per month be awarded to each of the claimants, namely Smt. Krishna, Jasbir and Raj Kumar.

3. The said petition was contested by Gopi, by filing reply, alleging therein that so far as Jasbir, minor, is concerned, he was born out of the wed-lock, whereas Raj Kumar, minor, was not born out of the wed-lock, but was born only after Smt. Krishna had left the matrimonial home and that he was not his child. The other allegations were also denied and it was alleged that Smt. Krishna had left her matrimonial home on 4-6-1990 and that on 12-7-1990, Jasbir, minor was born. It was alleged that finally Krishna along with Jasbir had left the matrimonial home on 18-4-1991 and came to her parental house. It was alleged that thereupon, Gopi filed a divorce petition in the Courts at Chandigarh on 10-6-1991 and in the divorce petition, decree for divorce was passed on 30-10-1991. It was alleged that since 18-4-1991, Smt. Krishna had not lived with Gopi as his wife. It was alleged that Raj Kumar, minor, was born to Smt. Krishna as a result of her illicit relations with someone else and that he was the illegitimate child of Smt. Krishna. It was alleged that Smt. Krishna was in a position to earn her livelihood. It was denied that he was earning Rs. 6,000.00 per month, though it was admitted that he was working as Peon in the Co-operative Bank.

4. After recording evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 10-2-1999, allowed the maintenance petition under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and awarded Rs. 500.00 per month as maintenance to Smt. Krishna, while a sum of Rs. 300.00 each was allowed to the other two claimants, namely Jasbir and Raj Kumar, minors, from the date of institution of the petition i.e. 19-5-1997. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Magistrate, Gopi filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 17-7-2000, of his own, enhanced the amount of maintenance of Jasbir and Raj Kumar, minors, from Rs. 300.00 to Rs. 500.00 per month from the date of institution of the claim petition and disposed of the revision petition, vide order dated 17-7-2000. Aggrieved against these orders of the courts below, Gopi filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record carefully.

Initially, Sh. R. C. Chauhan, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. He was allowed time to file reply. Neither any reply was filed nor anyone had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents at the time of arguments on 16-7-2001.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that no maintenance could be allowed to