BASIRAN BIBI Vs. RAFI MIYA JIVA MIYA MULLECK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is admittedly the wife of the respondent Rafimiya Jivarniva Molak fled an application under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C.. 1973 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dakor for maintenance. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on appreciating the evidence, reached the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to maintenance and fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs. 50.00 per month from the date of the application which was filed in the said Court on 1-11-1976. The petitioner has approached this Court in revision contending that the amount fixed by the trial court is very much inadequate and the same may be raised to Rs. 150.00 per month.

(2.) The learned advocate Mr. D. F. Amin appeal are for the petitioner, while the learned advocate Mr. A.1. Patel, appears for respondent No. 1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. A. Bukhari appears for respondent No. 2 State of Gujarjt. The learned advocates have taken me through the judgment of the learned Magistrate as also through the material evidence on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed in the evidence, it appears that the amount of Rs. 50.00 fixed by the trial Court appears to be somewhat inadequate. At the same time, the claim made by the petitioner at Rs. 150.00 per month also appears to be highly exaggerated. Looking to the income of the respondent and looking to the members of Lite family, viz. his wife, his second wife, two children, mother and widowed sister, it appears that Rs. 75 per month will be quite reasonable amount which he can pay to the petitioner. The learned advocate Mr. A. J. Patel who appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 is not able to press that the amount should not be enhanced at all. The learned Advocate Mr. D. F. Amin appearing for the petitioner is unable to satisfy me from the facts on record as to how the claim of Rs. 1-50 p.m. can be allowed. He is not able to show that the facts and circumstances are such that anything more than Rs. 75 per month can be awarded. In view of this, I am inclined to partly allow this Revision Application an enhance the amount that of maintenance from Rs. 50 per month to Rs. 75 per month.

(3.) As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the revision application is partly allowed, the amount of maintenance fixed by the trial Court is enhanced from Rs. 50 per month to Rs. 75 per month. This amount of maintenance is also to be paid from the date of the application filed in the trial Court i. e. from 1-11-1976. It appears that most of arrears at the rate of Rs. 50 per month have been deposited and withdrawn by the petitioner. The difference of Rs. 25 per month from the date of the application which the respondent will be liable to pay has to be paid to the petitioner. The respondent Rail Miya Jiva Miya is given time to deposit in this Court the amount of difference and arrears, if any, within two months from today.