Bombay High Court
Anna Asaram Pakhare vs Alkabai Anna Pakhare & Ors on 1 September, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
108.04crvn
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2004
Anna s/o Asaram Pakhare,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Daregaon (Pakhare),
Post. Ladsawangi,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
1.
Alkabai w/o Anna Pakhare,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. C/o. Sukhdeo Natha Dandge,
At Post Varud,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. The State of Maharashtra. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr Ganesh Patnurkar, Advocate h/f Mr S.M. Vibhute,
Advocate for applicant;
Mr P.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.1;
Mr N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for respondent No.2
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Present criminal revision application is
by the applicant-husband questioning the order of
enhancement in exercise of powers under Section 127
of the Code of Criminal Procedure from Rs.350/- per
108.04crvn
month to Rs. 600/- per month.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant would
urge that initially the petition being Petition No.
E-306 of 1997 was filed on 31st January, 1997
claiming the maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Family
Court, Aurangabad, which came to be allowed, by an
order dated 22nd January, 1998 granting maintenance
of Rs.300/- per month. While doing so, learned
Family Court considered the source of income of
present applicant as that of income from
agricultural source i.e. to the tune of four acres
of land.
3. The petition under Section 127 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure being Petition No. 170 of
2000 was filed on 31st January, 2000, which came to
be allowed by learned Family Court, vide an order
dated 31st August, 2000 enhancing maintenance of
Rs.350/- per month from Rs.300/- per month i.e.
enhancement of Rs.50/- per month. Thereafter, again
108.04crvn
the respondent-wife moved Criminal Misc.
Application No. 57 of 2003 before learned Family
Court, Aurangabad seeking enhancement. The
enhancement was ordered by the Family Court, on
10th November, 2003, enhancing the maintenance by
Rs,.250/- per month and as such, awarded total
maintenance of Rs.600/- per month. The entitlement
of maintenance by respondent-wife is not
questioned. What is questioned is, without any
change in the circumstances, the enhancement is
granted, which is contrary to the scheme of Section
127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would
urge that the source of income of the applicant is
at all not taken into account and other financial
liabilities.
5. In my opinion, the fact remains that the
enhancement under Section 127 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure was sought after three years
from the date of last enhancement granted under
108.04crvn
Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
source of income of the present applicant qua
agricultural land, which has irrigation
potentiality is very much taken into account. This
change in the circumstances as could be inferred
as provided under Section 127 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in the present case is rise in
living index i.e. increase in the cost of living.
6. In view thereof and having regard to the
fact that the order of enhancement is holding the
field since 2003 and there was no interim order
operating so as to grant benefit to the applicant
to pay maintenance of enhancement, in my opinion,
no case for interference after period of 13 years,
in revisional jurisdiction, is made out. As such,
criminal revision application fails and stands
rejected.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tupe
