District Hamirpur vs His Next Friend His
2022 Latest Caselaw 8954 HP

                                                                 .
        IN       THE   HIGH     COURT OF HIMACHAL                 PRADESH,





                                   SHIMLA
                    ON THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022





                                BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
                    CRIMINAL REVISION No.217 of 2021
    Between:





    PAWAN KUMAR SON OF SHRI
    BASANT;    RESIDENT     OF
    VILLAGE    GALOTE,    P.O.
    CHANGAR,    TEHSIL    AND

    DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

                                                               ....PETITIONER.

    (BY MR.VINOD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)



    AND
    DINESH KUMAR SON OF




    SHRI    PAWAN      KUMAR
    RESIDENT    OF    VILLAGE





    GALOTE,   P.O.  CHANGAR,
    TEHSIL   AND     DISTRICT
    HAMIRPUR, HP, THROUGH





    HIS  NEXT    FRIEND   HIS
    MOTHER SMT. BIMLA DEVI.
                                                           ....RESPONDENT.

    (BY MR.JAGMOHAN SINGH CHANDEL, ADVOCATE)

    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

             This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the

    following:



                                  JUDGMENT

In terms of the last order, affidavit has been filed by the

petitioner. A perusal of the same demonstrates that it is mentioned

.

therein that after the retirement of the petitioner form BBMB, Nangal

Township, District Rupnagar (Punjab), he received an amount of

Rs.37,03,467/­ in all from BBMB and out of this he has spent an

amount of Rs.25,00,000/­ on the renovation of old residential house,

purchase of car and part thereof has been given to his sons, namely

Amit Kumar and Sumit Kumar to earn their livelihood. It is further

stated in the affidavit that petitioner is drawing a pension of

Rs.32,156/­ per month. He is paying installment of Rs.10,000/­ per

month of the car loan.

2. The Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge,

Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P., in a petition preferred by the

respondent herein under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code for

grant of maintenance, in terms whereof, learned Family Court has

granted maintenance allowance of Rs.15,000/­ from the date of filing

of the petition to the applicant therein. The applicant happens to be

the son of the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that

amount of maintenance as has been ordered by the learned Court

below is on the higher side and probably, learned Court was

influenced of the fact that the petitioner was in job when the matter

was heard by it and it erred in not appreciating that as the petitioner

stood retired as on the date when the order was announced, the

Award was on the higher side. On this count, prayer has been made

.

by learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned

order.

4. The petition is opposed by learned counsel for the

respondent who has argued that in view of the fact that the

petitioner was having substantive means at his disposal, learned

Court below rightly held the respondent herein to be entitle to

maintenance of Rs.15,000/­ per month. He has further submitted

that the son is about thirteen­fourteen years old and it is otherwise

also the duty of the father to look after his child and therefore, the

order passed by the learned Court below calls for no interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone

through the order passed by the learned Court below.

6. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the petition

under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was preferred by the

minor child through mother against the present petitioner on

06.06.2017. The petition was decided on 29.07.2021 by the learned

Court below and petitioner is stated to have superannuated from

service on 30.06.2021.

7. This Court is of the considered view that as it is not a

case where the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner after

his retirement or that the petitioner was taken by surprise by the

order which was passed by the learned Court below. Therefore, the

grounds which have been agitated by learned counsel for the

petitioner while assailing the impugned order are not sustainable.

.

Admittedly, the petitioner knew that he was facing proceedings

under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and these

proceedings were pending since the year 2017. Simply because the

final decision was rendered thereupon by learned Court below about

twenty nine days post superannuation of the petitioner, this does

not renders the order to be per se bad in law as has been urged by

learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, the affidavit which has

been filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions which were

passed by this Court on 19.04.2022, it is apparent and evident that

the petitioner was in hurry to do away with the money which he

received from his employer post superannuation and the reason

seems to be obvious that he wanted to evade the honouring of the

order passed by the learned Trial Court which stands assailed by

way of this Revision Petition. This observation is being made by the

Court in view of the fact that as the petitioner is stated to have

superannuated on 30.06.2021 and the order passed by learned

Family Court is dated 29.07.2021, if it is to be assumed that the

petitioner had by the time the order was announced, spent almost

all that he got post superannuation from BBMB, then obviously he

did away with this money within twenty nine days as from the day

when he retired. However, after his superannuation as by no stretch

of imagination the petitioner would have had received his entire

retiral benefits within fifteen or twenty days, thereafter, it is

apparent and evident that this entire money was spent by the

.

petitioner after he was aware of the order that was passed by learned

Family Court. Otherwise also, as is evident from the affidavit filed by

the petitioner, as his family members including his other sons are

well settled and not dependent upon the petitioner, therefore, out of

the pension which is now being received by him, he can discharge

the payment of maintenance allowance which has been ordered by

learned Family Court.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has superannuated,

some indulgence be shown by the Court.

9. This Revision Petition is disposed of by though otherwise

maintaining the findings which have been returned by learned

Family Court, but by reducing the Award amount from Rs.15,000/­

to Rs.12,000/­ per month, but with effect from today, meaning

thereby that the petitioner will pay the maintenance allowance to the

respondent at the rate as has been granted by learned Family Court

till the month of October, 2022 and as from the month of November,

2022 onwards, Rs.12,000/­ per month. Pending miscellaneous,

applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 02, 2022 (Rishi)