BIHARILAL PRADHAN Vs. KALYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this criminal revision the applicant has impugned the order dated 15/4/2002 passed in Criminal case No. 34/02 whereby learned Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Mahasamund has allowed the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 127 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 1,000 per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant's application for maintenance was allowed and the High court vide order dated 7. 11. 1984 passed in criminal Revision No. 25/83 directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200 per month. Her application under Section 127 of the Code was further allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, mahasamund vide order dated 8/9/1997 passed in Criminal Case no. 106/90 and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 400 per month. Non-applicant further moved an application under Section 127 of the Code before the Judicial magistrate on 20/9/2001 for enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same was also allowed by the impugned order and the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 400 to Rs. 1,000.

(3.) THE only ground urged by the applicant is that the maintenance was granted to the non-applicant before 30/5/1998 when the amendment in Section 125 of the Code came into force and ceiling of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 500 was enhanced to Rs. 3,000. Amended provisions are applicable only in the proceedings which are pending after 30/5/1998 and in relation to the orders which have been passed after 30/5/1998 and for the purposes of orders passed under the un-amended Section 125 of the Code maximum ceiling of Rs. 500 per month maintenance would apply. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of ramfool Moolchand Mina v. Smt. Jagrati ram fool Mina.