Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kuldeep Kaur And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
Bench: Arvind Kumar (Ii)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 86 of 2010
Petitioner :- Smt. Kuldeep Kaur And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Chandra Keshwar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
This criminal revision has been filed by Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, wife of Sardar Surendra Pal Singh and Km. Kulvindar Kaur @ Nancy, daughter of Sardar Surendra Pal Singh against the order dated 14.10.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in case No. 25 of 2002, under section 127 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and another vs. Sardar Surendra Pal Singh), by which learned court below has directed respondent no. 2 to pay enhanced amount Rs. 2500/- per month to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to Km. Kulvindar Kaur @ Nancy.
A perusal of the record reveals that previously an application under section 125 Cr. P. C., case No. 378 of 1991 Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and another vs. Sardar Surendra Pal Singh was decided ex-parte on 30.11.1993, by which respondent No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 5,00/- per month to the wife and Rs. 2,00/- per month to the minor daughter. Later on an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was moved for enhancing of the maintenance amount for the minor daughter, which was listed as 378 of 1991, which also was ex-parte allowed on 01.05.1997 and the maintenance for the daughter was enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month. The wife and daughter had again moved an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. , case No. 25 of 2002 for enhancement of the maintenance amount for wife and unmarried daughter. It was prayed that Rs. 5,000/- per month be directed to be paid to the wife and Rs. 5000/- per month be directed to be paid to the unmarried daughter. This application was decided on 24.07.2004, by which the maintenance for the wife was enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- per month and for minor daughter, it was enhanced to Rs. 800/- per month. Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision No. 3579 of 2004 in this Court and this Court has allowed the revision, remanded the matter for fresh hearing and order, vide order dated 30.03.2007 and it was directed that enhancement order be passed after considering the evidence available on record. After the remand, both parties appeared in the court and produced their evidence. Learned court below after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by inadequate enhancement in maintenance amount, present revision has been filed.
I have heard Sri Chandra Keshwar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists and also learned AGA for the State.
Respondent No. 2 did not appear despite service of the notices.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the court below has failed to consider the status of respondent no. 2, who is getting salary from his department. As per pay details of respondent No. 2. Respondent no. 2 was getting gross salary to the tune of Rs. 54080/- in the month of May 2009. He has no other liability so, he can pay adequate amount for maintenance of the wife. It was also argued that since the revisionist no. 2, minor daughter, has attained majority, hence he is pressing this revision only for the wife. It was prayed that the wife is entitled for at least Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance from respondent no. 2, because she has no other income and no other means of livelihood. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that he is aggrieved only by inadequacy of maintenance amount. The pay details of the respondent No. 2 has been filed as Annexure 7. According to which, he was getting Rs. 54080/- per month as gross salary and after deductions, he was getting Rs. 37429/- net per month. A perusal of the pay details reveals that this amount Rs. 37429/- is after deduction of the recovery of maintenance amount as per court's direction. It is also revealed that he has taken some advance from his General Provident Fund and the recovery for that is Rs. 2900/- per month.
In the Case of Bhupindra Singh Walia vs. Varinder Kaur, 1993 Cr. L.J 1128 (Punjab & Hariyana), it has been held that Revisional court can also enhance the maintenance allowances and section 127 Cr.P.C. creates no bar. The court can take judicial notice that costs of living is rising day by day. In the case of Dhan Raj vs. Kishni, 1998 Cr.L.J. 1312 (Rajasthan), it has been held that in proceedings under section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancment of maintenance, judicial notice of inflation and rising cost of commodities can be taken into account by the courts.
In the case of Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi, AIR 1975 SC 83, it has been held that the phrase "change in circumstances refers to a change in the pecuniary or other circumstances of the party paying or receiving the allowance which would justify an increase or decrees of the amount of the monthly payment originally fixed". Increase in father's/husband's salary, from the time of the original order, is a valid change in the circumstances.
From the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the learned court below has not considered the salary received by respondent No. 2. The enhancement made by the court below is inadequate. Learned court below has noted this fact that minor daughter is getting education in Allahabad University and was studying in B.Tech, at the time of hearing this criminal revision. She has attained majority, so now the respondent no. 2 has only the responsibility of payment of maintenance to his wife. As the order for maintenance for the daughter under section 125 Cr.P.C. the matter comes to an end. Considering the entire circumstances, rise in inflation, cost of living and also considering the salary of respondent No. 2, which keeps increasing per year by way of increment and dearness allowances etc, this Court is of the view that increase in monthly maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 2500/- will meet to ends of justice.
In the result, revision is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed.
The maintenance amount for the wife/ revisionist no. 1 is enhanced to Rs. 5000/- per month from the date of the order passed by the trial court i.e. 14.10.2009. After filing of the certified copy of this order before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, he will make every endeavor for realising the arrears and also future maintenance amount.
(Arvind Kumar Tripathi-II,J)
Order Date :- 31.08.2010.
v.k.updh.
