RAJ KUMARI Vs. DEV RAJ VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.R. Khanna, J.-Smt. Raj Kumari and Dev Raj Vij were married in the year 1950. The marriage, however, floundered, and in the year 1956 the husband applied for judicial separation. This was without success, and his final appeal -was dismissed by the High Court in 1968. There has been no child.

(2.) On 18-3-1969 Smt. Raj Kumari moved a petition for grant of maintenance to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This was allowed at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per month by an order made by a Magistrate on 21-6-1973. The maintenance allowance was payable from the date of the petition. Both the sides assailed this order in revisions. Smt. Raj Kumari contended that the maintenance was too meagre, while the husband pleaded that the Delhi court had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter. This latter contention prevailed with the High Court, and as such the petition for maintenance stood rejected. Naturally in the circumstances, the propriety of enhancing the maintenance could not be then gone into. Smt. Raj Kumari, however, feeling aggrieved moved the Supreme Court, and succeeded in establishing that the court at Delhi had jurisdiction. This was on 17-2-1977. The result was that the order of maintenance stood sustained. In that eventuality Smt. Raj Kumari could have pressed before the High Court that her revision for enhancement should be decided on merits. Somehow this did not happen.

(3.) The petitioner later moved a petition under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code . before Metropolitan Magistrate on 27-8-1977 seeking enhancement of the maintenance to Rs. 500.00 per month. It was pointed out that Dev Raj Vij was Principal of the Government State Training College, Patiala, and was drawing Rs. 2,500.00 per month, and leading a luxurious life, while she was left to reside with' her parents and brother at their mercy. On this petition after contest the trial court has enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 200.00 per month. 'This has been made operative from the date of the order viz. 8-8-1983. It is in these circumstances that Smt. Raj Kumari feeling aggrieved, has now moved the present revision. The grievance made is two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that the enhancement is too nominal and entirely in commentsurate with the earnings of her husband who apart from enjoying good salary was owning a car. Secondly, it is pleaded that the enhancement should have been from the date of the application. It is urged that she camipt suffer or be penalised for the delay of six years which took place in the disposal of her petition for enhancement under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code ,