DINA NATH vs NIRMLA DEVI

2026:HHC:28384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Criminal Revision (FC) No.13 of 2024
Reserved on: 20.05.2026
Date of decision: 14.07.2026
Uploaded on: 14.07.2026
Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Anjana Kumari & Ors. …Respondents.
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate.

For the respondent(s) : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
This petition has been preferred by petitioner-husband
against his wife-respondent No.1 (Anjana Kumari) and children-
respondents No.2 and 3 (Dhrub Chand and Bharti) for setting aside
order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Petition No.15/22/21 titled as
'Anjana Kumari & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar' , whereby Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in a petition
filed under Section 127 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short,
' Cr.P.C. '), has enhanced maintenance allowance from Rs.5,000/-

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS

-2- 2026:HHC:28384

per month (Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1,500/- each
High Court of H.P.
to respondents No.2 and 3-children) to Rs.20,000/- per month
(Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.5,000/- each to
respondents No.2 and 3-children).
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also gone through the record.
3. Various grounds have been taken in the revision petition
by the petitioner assailing order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the
Trial Court, including that monthly income of the petitioner is
Rs.44,000/- and out of that amount, payment of Rs.5,000/- per
month towards maintenance to the respondents has not been
appreciated by the Family Court in the right perspective, because the
petitioner is also paying Rs.4,000/- to his mother and total liability to
pay maintenance, after adding maintenance of his mother, becomes
Rs.9,000/-, whereas the petitioner has also to spend for his bread
and butter and, thus, enhancement of maintenance to Rs.20,000/-
per month is liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. It has been further submitted that it is not the petitioner-
husband who has neglected the wife, rather, respondent No.1-wife
does not want to live with the husband and has neglected him.
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS

-3- 2026:HHC:28384

5. It has been submitted that the Family Court has wrongly
High Court of H.P.
arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has neglected
respondent No.1-wife. It has been further submitted that the
petitioner had filed divorce petition, which was dismissed by the
Family Court. Thereafter, FAO(FC) No.1 of 2023, titled as 'Pawan
Kumar vs. Anjana Kumari' , has been filed and is pending
adjudication before this High Court. It has been further submitted that
respondent-wife has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, in the year 2023, that too after 12 years of
separation.
6. No other point has been urged.
7. Admittedly, the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Sarkaghat, in CRMA No.48-IV/2010, vide order dated 11.10.2012,
had granted maintenance to the respondents under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., which was accepted by the petitioner-husband and he has
been continuously paying Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and
Rs.1,500/- each to respondents No.2 and 3-children.
8. The impugned order has been passed in an application
filed under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, plea of the petitioner
with regard to merits and demerits of the facts for denying
enhancement of maintenance amount, particularly with regard to
allegation that it is the wife who left the company of the petitioner-
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS

-4- 2026:HHC:28384

husband and used to file various complaints to harass him, is of no
High Court of H.P.
consequence, because valid reason for living separately already
stands determined in the previous round of litigation under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarkaghat.
9. Therefore, the only issue which can be adjudicated in
the present petition is as to whether enhancement made by the
Family Court is appropriate or highly excessive.
10. To oppose the enhancement, it is claimed on behalf of
the petitioner that his parents are old and he has to incur expenses
for looking after them. However, in cross-examination, he has
admitted that his father is a retired Army personnel and is receiving
pension. He has further stated that he did not know about the rank
of his father and amount of pension received by him after retirement.
However, he has also stated in the cross-examination that he is not
having good relations with his father and that his father is receiving
pension, but he has expressed ignorance about the fact that his
father is getting Rs.50,000/- as pension.
11. It has been admitted by the petitioner that the petition
filed by him for dissolution of marriage in the year 2010 was
dismissed by the Court at Hamirpur and appeal preferred against the
said decision was also dismissed. It has been further stated that the
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS

-5- 2026:HHC:28384

second petition was also dismissed, whereafter he has filed an
High Court of H.P.
appeal, which is pending adjudication before this High Court.
12. The amount of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and
Rs.1,500/- each to respondents No.2 and 3-children was awarded in
the year 2010, whereas application for enhancement was filed in
August, 2021, i.e. almost 11 years after determination of
maintenance amount.
13. In 11 years, there has been huge inflation in prices
affecting livelihood as well as education of children. Enhancement
from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,500/- each to Rs.5,000/-
each in favour of wife and children, respectively, at any stretch of
imagination, cannot be said to be highly excessive, particularly when
father of the petitioner is also getting pension and petitioner is getting
salary.
14. Perusal of the record indicates that no material has been
placed on record by the petitioner-husband before the Trial Court or
before this Court to justify his opposition to enhancement of
maintenance amount. On the contrary, considering the gap of about
11 years from the date of maintenance granted by the Court in a
petition preferred by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
enhancement appears to be justified. We do not find any material
irregularity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Rather, vide
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS

-6- 2026:HHC:28384

the impugned order, reasonable maintenance has been awarded to
High Court of H.P.
the respondents.
15. Another plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that
after retirement salary/income of the petitioner is going to be reduced
and, therefore, awarded amount deserves to be reduced. However,
enhancement on this ground was never opposed before the Trial
Court. In any case, for any changed circumstances, petitioner adopt
the recourse available under law by filing an application under the
appropriate provision of BNSS/Cr.P.C. for alteration of maintenance
amount, because present revision petition has to be adjudicated for
ascertaining legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order on
the basis of material on record.
16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any
ground for interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court
enhancing maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly,
petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge


(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
th
14 July, 2026
(Pardeep)
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2026 13:04:30 :::CIS