Sh. Ramkrishan v. Junga, Sub Tehsil Junga, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla, H.P

Smt. Bhupeshwari Devi, D/o Late Sh. Mast Ram, R/o Village Kheel Kajaura, P.O. Junga, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla, H.P.

Master Prem, S/o Smt. Bhupeshwari Devi, (minor).

Miss Punu, D/o Smt. Bhupeshwari Devi, (minor). The respondents No. 2 and 3 through their mother i.e. Respondent No.1 as their natural guardian, R/o Village Kheel Kajaura, P.O. Junga, Tehsil and Distt. Shimla, H.P. ......Respondents. Petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.Mahesh Sharma, Advocate. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 30.03.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999, affirmed on 10.12.2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Revision No. 11-S/10 of 2002.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 that respondents had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was contested by the petitioner. In that petition, respondent No.1 falsely claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition on 30.03.2002 and allowed maintenance in favour of respondent No.1 at the rate of `350/- and at the rate of `250/- each per month in favour of respondents No.2 and 3. The order dated 30.03.2002 was upheld by learned Sessions Judge on 10.12.2003 in Criminal Revision No. 11-S/10 of 2002.

3. Asha Devi claiming herself to be the wife of petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings of perjury against respondent No.1 in whose favour the maintenance was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. This application was allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 22.08.2008 holding that respondent No.1 Bhupeshwari Devi in Petition No. 15/4 of 1999 has given false statement and, therefore, rendered her liable for prosecution under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

The respondents filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowed earlier in their favour. This application was contested by petitioner by filing reply. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 03.02.2011 partly allowed the application, maintenance amount in the sum of `250/- per month awarded vide order dated 30.03.2002 to respondents No. 2 and 3 has been enhanced to `1,000/- per month with effect from 18.12.2004 i.e. date of institution of the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

The order dated 03.02.2011 has not been assailed in the present petition. The order dated 22.08.2008 has been passed by Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate on the application of Asha Devi, who was not a party in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999 decided on 30.03.2002, she was also not a party in Criminal Revision No.11-S/10 of 2002 decided by learned Sessions Judge on

10.12.2003.

The orders dated 30.03.2002 and 10.12.2003 have been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner even though the order on the application of Asha Devi under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was passed on 22.08.2008. The petitioner has not explained the delay in challenging the orders dated 30.03.2002 and 10.12.2003. In addition, the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been assailed in the present petition. There is no merit in the petition, hence dismissed. The Cr.M.P. Nos 191 and 231 of 2012 also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition. March 29, 2012. (Krt) ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.