HASSAIN @ HASAN HANNU HAJI Vs. FATMABIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate ' Mr. R. N. Shah for the petitioner of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The opponent -wife had initially filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for her maintenance and for that of her child. By compromise the wife's maintenance was fixed at Rs. 90/ - and the child's at Rs. 60/ -. This was on 10th December, 1980. Thereafter in the year 1982 the wife filed an application for enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the circumstances had changed. The learned Magistrate, taking into account the rising cost of living raised the wife's maintenance to Rs. 200/ - per month and the child's to Rs. 150/ - per month taking into account the fact that the husband during that period was earning Rs. 1,000/ - by way of salary. The Sessions Court confirmed that order. This has given rise to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THIS Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited. Mr. Shah urged before me that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to award maintenance because the parties were Muslims, and there was a divorce under their personal law and the amount has been paid as per a document. The question is no longer open to be agitated in view of the Supreme Court's latest judgment. Mr. Shah urged that once the compromise was reached the Court could not amend the agreement. No law was shown which would restrict the Court's jurisdiction to grant move after the agreement. The learned Judge, vide page 35 of this compilation was of the view that had he been a Court to trial he would have given only Rs. 290/ - and not Rs. 350/ - , but for good reasons he refused to interfere in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The petition has no merit. It is rejected. Rule discharged. Petition rejected.