MANJULABEN RAMANLAL AMIN Vs. VISHNUPRASAD BALDEVDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition before us is for enhancing the maintenance to the petitioner and her minor son which motion for enbancement has been envisaged by that decision in Special Criminal Application No. 33 of 1972. That application which was decided on 10/11 February, 1975 was one for the issue of a writ of babe as corpus regarding the minor children at the instance of the wife against her husband. Ultimately the arrangement which was reached between the parties was that of the two sons of the parties the elder must be in the custody of the father and the younger in the custody of the mother. While directing such custody this Court provided for maintenance at Rs. 175/- per month with liberty to either party to move the .court if anyone felt that change in situation justified it. The order was of the year 1975. This court was moved again in 1979 alleging that there was change in conditions and therefore the maintenance awarded should be increased. The matter was disposed of by another Divison Bench and by the said order which took note of the changed circumstances the respondent-husband was directed to pay to the petitioner-wife a sum of Rs. 550/- per month from 22nd February, 1978. This was taking into account the fact that a sum of Rs. 200/- was to be paid as monthly maintenance to the wife, Rs. 200/- as monthly maintenance to minor son Chetan and Rs. ISO/as rent for the housing accommodation of the wife. Evidently on the premises that the situation between 1978 and 1984 has changed considerably this petition has been moved by the original applicant for further revision of the maintenance. What is prayed for is Rs. 400/per month towards maintenance for the petitioner, Rs. 400/- per month for minor son Chetan and Rs. 250/- towards residential accommodation, thus in all Rs. 1,050/- per month. This application is seriously opposed.

(2.) It goes without saying that the original order of 1975 which is binding on both parties envisages a revision of the quantum of maintenance depending upon the change in circumstances and in 1978 that has been taken note of to revise the maintenance from Rs. 175/- to Rs. 550/-. If change of circumstances would permit such revision it cannot be said that between the year 1978 and 1984 there has been no change calling for revision of the maintenance. There has been considerable change in the cost of living and therefore eyen without taking note of the plea of the petitioner that there is change in circumstances on account of the minor boy in her custody attaining the age of 15 years necessitating more expenditure on his education and, otherwise we will be justified in making revision. Actually we find from the All India Average Consumer Price Index number for industrial workers that for Ahmedabad the figure is 757 in September, 1984 if the base year 1960 is 100 while the corresponding figure for 1978 is seen to be Rs. 315/-. This will give a rough idea of what should be the enhancement. The 1st respondentTs case is that the house in which he lives is not a big house, that he has income from a saw mill which is not considerable, that he has several commitments to meet such as education of his elder son and therefore he I should not be multed with a liability in addition to what bas already been imposed. We suggested an enhancement which will not be very substantial.

(3.) Just as the 1st respondent has need for money for his normal living his wife and minor child will also feel the same need and therefore it is necessary that the changed context must be taken note of. We are not proposing to take note of the fact that the minor son has attained the age of 15 and is in the Xth standard and his education may call for further commitment on the part of the petitioner. We are also not taking seriously the plea by the 1st respondent that the said minor son Chetan may go over to the father to live with him. We do not think that if the minor son goes to the father his expenses will be less than what he will have to pay by way of his maintenance to the mother. That part the minor son who was before us is aged enough to know the consequences and he categorically expressed his option to be with the mother and so the question of his going to the father does not arise. In these circumstances, we need not go into the controversy whether besides the income from the saw mill, which according to the 1st Respondent is only Rs. 17,000/- per year he has other income as alleged by the applicant. That is because we are only directing the 1st respondent to pay less than the money equivalent of what was directed to be paid in 1978 and not considering any further commitment required to be met on account of the change of circumstances. Though the money equivalent of the sum of Rs. 550/- awarded in 1978 would be above Rs. 1000/-, per mensem we are limiting it to Rs. 900/-, Rs. 350/- as maintenance to the wife Rs. 350/- as maintenance to the minor son and Rs. 200/- at cost of residential accommodatition. This enhancement shall operate from 21st September, 1984, the date of the application. The petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Petition partly Accepted.