SANGEETA SARTHI Vs. DHANANJAY SARTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally at the motion stage itself.

(2.) Facts in brief required for adjudication of the instant criminal revision are that vide order dated 27.4.2005 in M.Cr.C. No. 53 of 2005 the trial Court directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000.00 per month to the Applicant by the Respondent. Thereafter, the present Applicant had filed M.J.C. No. 33 of 2009 under Sec. 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for enhancement of the maintenance allowance before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, vide order dated 12.8.2015, allowed the said application filed by the Applicant and directed the Respondent to pay Rs. 3,500.00 per month from the date of the order as maintenance allowance. As the order passed by the Court below is effective from the date of the order, the Applicant has preferred the instant criminal revision wherein it is prayed summarily that since the said application was filed under Sec. 127 of the Code before the Court below on 24.11.2008, she is not responsible for the delay and also the Court below appreciated in paragraph 9 of the order regarding cost of living as shoot up more than 10 times it would be appropriate to make effective order from the date of presentation of the Application and as the trial Court had not given any reason as to why it is allowing the application from the date of order. In absence of any such appreciation, looking to the appreciation made in paragraph 9 of the order passed by the Court below, it is prayed that the instant criminal revision may be allowed and the order dated 12.8.2015 be made operational and effective since the date of the presentation of the application i.e. from 24.11.2008.

(3.) On behalf of the Respondent, a written response/objection has been filed wherein it is submitted that the Applicant is working as a Computer Instructor and making sufficient earnings from that job. The order passed by the Court below regarding enhancement of maintenance allowance from the date of the order cannot be said to be improper. It is further submitted that as per settled law, Sec. 127 of the Code is distinguishable from the provisions made in Sec. 125 of the Code and, therefore, he further submitted that the Applicant has not claimed the enhancement of maintenance allowance with effect from the date of presentation of her application. Hence, the same is not liable to be considered before this Court and the application filed on behalf of the Applicant may be dismissed.