Virander Singh vs Simpla Devi

Puneet Gupta, J

Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 23.11.2021 whereby his Revision Petition against order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the trial Court stands dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been directed to pay the maintenance amount not from the date of filing of the petition, but from the date of passing of the order as circumstances changed in between passing of interim order and the final order. Learned counsel for other side has argued that the petitioner has no case to file petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the income of the petitioner herein as assessed by the trial court and revisional court is not in consonance with the salary of the petitioner, which got increased during pendency of the petition and, therefore, the order directing the petitioner herein to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from date of filing of petition is bad in law.

The Court is not inclined to agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. The trial court has granted the maintenance allowance keeping in view all facts and circumstances of the case. The Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to enter into the factual arena and the orders passed by the Courts below unless they are palpably wrong. The same is not the case here.

The argument of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner should be held entitled to pay maintenance only from the date of passing of order as the increase in the salary of the petitioner took place after passing of interim order is not accepted. Even if the salary of the petitioner is to be considered as Rs.56,000/- p.m. when the initial order of maintenance came to be passed even then the amount of Rs.15,000/- per month as granted by the trial court and upheld by the revisional court cannot be said to be unreasonable or on higher side. There is no error in the impugned order, which requires interference by this Court.

This petition is dismissed along with connected CrlM No.2364/2021.