IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

241 Date of decision: 09.04.2026 HARJINDER SINGH …PETITIONER VERSUS DALVEER KAUR AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the respondents.

***

Shalini Singh Nagpal, J.

1. Prayer in the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside order dated 10.01.2020 of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, allowing the revision petition impugning order dated 19.04.2017 of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was married to respondent No.1 on 14.08.2005 at Noorpur, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. On account of disputes between the couple, respondent No.1 left the matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock on 10.05.2006. A petition under 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents, wherein ex parte order was passed and maintenance was awarded, which petitioner had been paying. Respondent No.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowance, which learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh rightly dismissed.

3. Learned counsel further submits that in revision, learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib enhanced maintenance allowance of respondent No.1 to ₹7,000/- per month and respondent No.2 to ₹3,000/- per month with effect from the date of filing of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. i.e. 15.03.2013. He submits that there was nothing in Section 127 Cr.P.C. authorizing the Court to pass orders with retrospective effect and alteration of maintenance allowance was permissible only from the date of order passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

4. He further submits that respondent No.1 had remarried and respondent No.2 had been given in adoption and the revisional Court enhanced maintenance allowance ignoring material facts. It was further urged that respondent No.2 had since attained majority on 10.05.2024 and was not entitled to maintenance allowance, after attaining majority. In support of his arguments, he refers to the judgment of this Court in Major Singh Vs. Joginder Kaur 1996(3) AICLR 756, judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Pilli Venkanna Vs. Pilli Nookalamma and Another 1998 CriLJ 1922 and judgment of Patna High Court in Lal Bahadur Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Another 2006(27) R.C.R. (Criminal) 830

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in compliance with order dated 11.09.2023 of this Court, has filed affidavit of respondent No.2 on the lines that her date of birth is 10.05.2006 and that she has attained majority; that her late mother-respondent No.1 never performed second marriage and remained legally wedded wife of the petitioner; that she was never given in adoption to Komalpreet Singh. He submits that learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib rightly enhanced maintenance allowance with effect from date of application.

6. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife and minor child of petitioner was allowed in 2009 and ₹1,000/- per month was awarded to respondent No.1 and ₹500/- per month to respondent No.2. Application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed by respondents on 15.03.2013 was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh observing that there was no change in circumstances. On the basis of evidence led in the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib found that petitioner was earning ₹45,752/- per month. The observation (cid:1)

that respondent No.2 who was earlier 1 ^{years old, was school going and there} (cid:2)

was a change in circumstances cannot be faulted. The enhancement of maintenance to ₹7,000/- per month for respondent No.1 and ₹3,000/- per month for respondent No.2 is based on correct appreciation. The quantum increase in the maintenance allowance, ordered by learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib has not even been challenged.

7. Plea