NANAK CHAND Vs. SMT. BEENA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No. 2.

(2.) THIS revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, whereby the quantum of maintenance awarded to Smt. Beena w/o Nanak Chand was enhanced from Rs. 400/ - to the tune of Rs. 6,000/ -.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel on behalf of the revisionist has urged that there is No. provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to alter the amount of maintenance, which has already been enhanced. This is quite an unsustainable argument, inasmuch as, the provision under Section 127 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Code does not envisage such an analogy, as has been advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist. It is but natural that inflation takes place with the passage of time, prices are shoot up. When such a situation is faced by the lady living alone, she cannot maintain herself with the meager amount of Rs. 400/ - per month, so the same was altered on dated 1.10.2001 by the competent court. The revisionist was employed in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and it is documentarily proved that in the month of June, 2006, he used to get Rs. 32,000/ - per month as gross salary. In order to save himself from making the payment to his wife -Smt. Beena, if he kept on allowing deductions to the tune of more than Rs. 10,000/ -, then he did so to increase his savings and to receive them later. For the assessment of payment of the maintenance to his wife, his gross salary would be taken into account and the learned Principal Judge has done so. Although, the revisionist has been retired from the ONGC but the authentic paper, issued by ONGC itself, shows that he has received more than Rs. 22.00 lacs at the time of his superannuation. It also makes manifest that the issue related to his pension and retirement benefit scheme has been settled. So the contention of leaned counsel for the revisionist that in ONGC, there is No. provision of payment of pension to the revisionist, is not true.