HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3851 of 2007 Petitioner :- Sheo Brat Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Anirudh Upadhyay,Prabhaker Tewari Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,R.J. Sahai,Ramsheel Sharma,V.K. Saharma,Vijay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Surendra Singh,J.
Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 429 of 2006, Nirmala Devi vs. State and another.
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that the Respondent No.2 had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.09.1994 claiming maintenance from the applicant (husband), before the Judicial Magistrate IInd, Jaunpur.
Indisputably, the revisionist and the respondent no.2 had entered into marital knot in the year 1986 and since 1991 they are living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. It was further claimed that revisionist is employed in Block and is getting Rs. 3,000/- per month. Besides this his father is a principal in school and is also having considerable agricultural land. The respondent claimed Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance.
The stand of the revisionist was that the opposite party no.2 was educated and doing job as a Cashier in a society in Bombay. She was getting Rs. 2500/- per month. Besides this she was earning considerable amount of money from the tuition. The plea that the revisionist had married with another lady was denied. It was further claimed that the opposite party no.2 can maintain herself from the money she is earning per month.
Considering the evidence on record, the trial court found that the respondent-applicant did not have sufficient means to maintain herself. She was granted maintenance allowance to the sum of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the order.
The revision petition was filed by the Respondent No.2. Challenge was to the order to get maintenance allowance from the date of the application instead of from the date of order. The stand that Respondent No.2 was unable to maintain herself from her income was reiterated.
The revisional court analysed the evidence and held that the revisionist (husband) was employed on the post of Regional Youth Welfare Officer and his monthly income was more than Rs. 6,000/- while claimant-respondent was unable to maintain herself. The revision was accordingly allowed. The present revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month in place of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of the order in lieu of date of application. It was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistant with status of family. Being aggrieved the revisionist has preferred this revision before this Court inter alia on the ground that there being specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of quantum of maintenance allowance, the revisional court should not have suo moto enhanced the maintenance allowance unless there being such application under section 127 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, the impugned order under challenge is illegal, erroneous, perverse and arbitrary in nature, and is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has opposed this revision and had argued that the revisionist at present is Prantiya Yuva Dal Adhikari at Sant Ravidas Nagar and received the salary to the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further argued that the opposite party no.2 is the first wife of the revisionist and she having no source of income is entitled to get enhanced amount so that she could maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is constraint with status of family. It was further argued that despite the interim order of this Court dated 13.12.2007 the revisionist has failed to pay even a single penny to the opposite party in terms of the order passed by the trial court. The conduct of the revisionist shows that he had no respect to the orders passed by the courts and therefore, he cannot be allowed to reap fruits of his illegal design by impeding the course of justice by resorting to unscrupulous methodology. It was residually submitted that when the amount was claimed as maintenance there was statutory limitation prescribed as Rs. 500/- which has been done away with by omitting the words of limitation so far as the amount is concerned by amendment in 2001 to criminal procedure code. The claim of Rs. 500/- for maintenance was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 13.09.1994 and this revision was filed in the year 2007 and since then there has been a lot of change of circumstances. It will be very difficult for the opposite party no.2 to maintain herself even on payment of Rs. 1,000/- per month under the given facts and circumstances. Therefore, taking into account the high cost of living the quantum of maintenance should be more than what has been allowed by the revisional court.
Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA for the State and having perused the material placed on record, I find that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are well inconformity in law and does not warrant any interference in this revision so far as the enhancement of the amount of maintenance is concerned. It is to be marked that section 125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social justice and specially to protect women and children as also old and infirm poor parents and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) re-enforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. Provisions gives effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents as the case may be, so long as they are unable to maintain themselves.
Indisputably the law is intended to protect the destitute and harassed women and any rigid interpretation impeding the course of justice goes against the legislative intent. This appears to be the intention of legislator by omitting the words of limitation, so far as the amount is concerned. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (amendment) Act, 2001 (Central Act 50 of 2001) the words "not exceeding Rs. 500/- in the whole have been omitted w.e.f. 24.09.2001". In the present case, it is not in dispute that when the claim petition was filed, Rs. 500/- was claimed as maintenance as that was the maximum amount which could have been granted because of the un-amended section 125 Cr.P.C. but presently, there is no such limitation in view of the amendment as referred to above.
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist vehemently argued that there was no amendment made to the claim petition seeking enhancement, yet the court had enhanced the quantum of maintenance to the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month. I find that this is a too technical plea. As a matter of fact, section 127 of the code permits increase in the quantum. It is significant to note that the application for maintenance was filed on 13.09.1994. The order granting maintenance was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur on 3.6.2006. One should not forget that the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in criminal revision enhanced the quantum of amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of order in lieu from the date of application. Otherwise also the object behind the maintenance proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to punish a person for his past neglect but to prevent vagrancy and destitution by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have normal claim to support. Such a deserted wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family, with this intent the legislature has inserted section 127 Cr.P.C. giving the right to such a women, children or parents whosoever they may be to claim for enhancement of the quantum of the maintenance allowance under the changed circumstances. Perceived with this view if the revisional court had enhanced the quantum of maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- from the date of the order of the Judicial Magistrate in lieu of from the date of application, has committed no mistake.
The impugned order is, therefore, well inconformity in law and does not suffer from any manifest illegality, irregularity and therefore does not warrant any interference of this Court. Therefore, this revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 13.12.2007 is also vacated.
Order Date :- 7.12.2011 Imroz