2026:HHC:28384 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 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. Whether approved for reporting?1 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/- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2026:HHC:28384 per month (Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.1-wife and Rs.1,500/- each 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. -3- 2026:HHC:28384 5. It has been submitted that the Family Court has wrongly 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- -4- 2026:HHC:28384 husband and used to file various complaints to harass him, is of no 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 -5- 2026:HHC:28384 second petition was also dismissed, whereafter he has filed an 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 -6- 2026:HHC:28384 the impugned order, reasonable maintenance has been awarded to 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 14th July, 2026 (Pardeep)