Mangal Singh vs Gurmit Kaur

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition had been listed on four occasions, but none appeared for the petitionerMangal Singh. There is no reasonable ground to adjourn the case. In these circumstances, I do not find any advantage to hear the petitioner''s counsel.

The dispute pertains to the maintenance for the respondents, having been enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 1st June, 1992. Gurmit Kaur, respondent No. 1, was married to the petitioner. Out of this wedlock they have five children. The marriage between the parties had been solemnised in the year 1957. Gurmit Kaur and her children had to file a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, awarded Rs. 200/ p.m. as maintenance to respondent No. 1.

Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petition was filed and vide impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/ p.m. to Gurmit Kaur from the date of application, and Rs. 200/ p.m. to Karamjit Singh from the date of application upto 19th of October, 1989, when he attains majority.

The basic plea as is apparent from the grounds of revision is against the enhancement of maintenance to respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

It has been recorded as a finding of fact that besides his pension, the petitioner was practising as Homoeopathic Doctor. The learned Sessions Judge concluded that the petitioner''s income cannot be less than Rs. 2000/ p.m. besides income from pension. I find no reason to come to any other conclusion. Therefore, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not call for any variation.

For these reasons, the revision fails and is dismissed.