2024:HHC:14263 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Rev. (FC) No. 26 of 2024 Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Bhagat Ram …Petitioner Versus Smt. Utmani & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. H. S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Praveen Hasta, Advocate. Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. with Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Dy. A.G. for the State. Mr. Ram Lok Negi, BDO, Nankhari, Mr. Puran Chand Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Sholi and Mr. Khem Singh, Panchayat Secretary. G.P. Tipper Majholi, in person. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) In compliance to the order dated 10.03.2025, Mr. Ram Lok Negi, BDO, Nankhari alongwith Mr. Puran Chand Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Sholi and Mr. Khem Singh, Panchayat Secretary. G.P. Tipper Majholi, is present alongwith relevant record. Let photocopies of the same be placed on record by the learned Additional Advocate General. 2 2024:HHC:14263 2. Heard. Aggrieved by the order of maintenance, more particularly, in favour of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. Having perused the record produced by the Block Development Officer through the concerned Secretaries, we prima facie find sufficient evidence to indicate that respondent No. 1 after soleminizing marriage with the petitioner, later on is residing with one Mr. Pyare Lal and out of said relationship one child also appears to have been born. 5. These findings are only tentative as regards and limited to the grant of maintenance and shall not be construed as finding of fact in any other proceedings. 6. Having prima facie come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had been residing with Pyare Lal, we are of the considered view that as of now, she cannot be awarded any maintenance as directed by the learned Court below. But nonetheless, we are of the considered view that since respondent No. 2 is probably reaching the age of majority, Rs.1000/- as awarded by the learned Court below is insufficient. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs. 1500/- per month. The order passed by the learned Court below is modified to this extent. 3 2024:HHC:14263 7. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 17th March, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)