DHARMRAJ VANRAJ DODIYA Vs. KAILASBEN DHARMRAJ DODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by consent of both the parties allowing maintenance of Rs.500/ per month to the respondent, who is the wife of the petitioner, was sought to be modified by the petitioner husband by filing necessary proceedings under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that after the above said order was passed, the wife had started earning in the institution known as SEWA i.e. Self Employee Women Association. By an order dated 18th April 2007, the Family Court, Ahmedabad before whom the above said application was filed, rejected it while relying upon the facts adduced in the cross examination of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was employed as an officer in IIM, the brother of the petitioner is a PSI and the petitioner himself is an instructor in ITI. The learned Family Court Judge also found that in crossexamination it was admitted that the project where the respondent wife was working was not permanent and that her income was temporary. The learned Judge has also found that the status of the petitioner was high as compared to the respondent. It was also found that the petitioner did not produce his salary slip and after recording the aforesaid findings, the application came to be rejected, which has aggrieved the petitioner and therefore, this revision application.

(2.) HAVING considered arguments advanced by the parties, it cannot be disputed that by consent of the parties, the first order allowing maintenance in the mere sum of Rs. 500/ per month was made by the Court below. However, while relying upon Bhagwan Dutt V. Kamla Devi reported in AIR 1975 SC 83 it was contended that the income of the wife is also relevant factor for consideration under Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and since, in the instant case, the Court below has failed to consider the same, the order passed by the Court is erroneous and therefore, this Court should exercise the revisional powers.

(3.) IT is required to be noted that Rs.500/ per month was fixed in the year 2000. Much water has flown thereafter and it appears that since it was impossible for the wife to maintain herself with that megre amount, she had no other option but to employ herself somewhere. It is also required to be noticed that the husband, who showed magnanimity in the year 2000 by offering Rs.500/ per month does not appear to have continued such magnanimity although, it can't be disputed that, the living cost was much more higher than what it was in the year 2000.