BARAD Vs. DEVENDRA RAMSINH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unfortunate deserted wife has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court under sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr. P.C." for brief) as the slice from her bread is soughuo be cut away by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara by his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1922 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Additional Sessions Judge reduced the quantum of maintenance awarded to the present petitioner by the learned Trial Magistrate from Rs. 455/ - per month to Rs. 350/ - per month practically without assigning any reasons, much less any cogent or convincing reasons in that regard.

(2.) THE facts giving, giving rise to this revisional application are not many and not much in dispute. The petitioner was required to file one maintenance application before the appropriate forum in Vadodara some time in 1989. It came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 of 1989. It appears to have teen assigned to the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and judicial Magistrate (First Class) of Vadodara. By his judgment and order passed on 10th January, 1992 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 45 of 1989, the learned Trial Magistrate accepted the maintenance application made by the petitioner and awarded to her the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 455/ - per month. Even at that time this quantum of maintenance could not be said to be enough to keep her body and soul together keeping in mind that she was a T.B. patient and also keeping in mind soaring, spiralling and skyrocketing prices of essential commodities day in and day out. The aggrieved husband carried the matter in revision before the Session Court questioning the correctness of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. His revisional application came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992. It appears to have been assigned to the learned, Additional Sessions Judge of Vadodara for hearing and disposal. By his judgment and order passed on 10th July, 1992 in Criminal Revision Application No. 62 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge practically without any rhyme or reason reduced the quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioner herein from Rs. 455/ -per month to Rs. 350/ - per month. That resulted in substantial cut in the otherwise meagre amount of maintenance which was awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate. She has, therefore, been obliged to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application.

(3.) IT becomes clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid so -called reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for interfering with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Trial Magistrate that what has weighed with the learned Additional Sessions judge in reducing the quantum of maintenance was the rising cost of living. It appears that the learned Judge thought that such rising cost of living would affect only the husband and not the wife, only the menfolk and not the womenfolk. Even after observing that she had no source of income and that she was a T.B. patient, it is surprising that the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reduce the quantum, of maintenance without realising that such rising trend of offices would affect the unfortunate wife more than Lite husband. As aforesaid, even she could not have been able to keep her body and soul together with the meagre amount of Rs. 455/ - per month. To top it all, she is a T.B. patient. She would need all the more nourishing food to keep the process of recovery uninterrupted and unbated. She might have to spend a large chunk of the maintenance amount towards medicines and nourishing food while combating the disease of T.B. What would be left with her for keeping her body and soul together can be anybody' s guess. In these circumstances, there was a case for enhancement of the quantum of maintenance rather than any curtailment or reduction. It is unfortunate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has turned blind eyes to these hard realities of life on the part of a women like the petitioner. The present petitioner might have heaved a sigh of relief and might have felt obliged to the learned Judge on noting that the finding in her favour recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate as to her entitlement to the maintenance from her husband was not disturbed in. the revisional proceedings.