KAMATCHI Vs. VELUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st Petitioner/wife Smt. Kamatchi filed a petition for maintenance against her husband in M. C. No. 247/77 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate No. 1, Ramanathapuram, claiming maintenance for herself and for her two children claiming Rs. 200/- p.m. for herself and Rs. 50/- p.m. each for her children.

(2.) On 28-2-1978, after an elaborate enquiry, the learned Magistrate passed an order, granting maintenance of Rs. 30/- p.m. to the wife, to a sum of Rs. 70/- p.m. After a. lapse of 8 years, since the petitioner/wife felt that the maintenance awarded in the year 1978 was not sufficient to meet the expenditure, she filed another petition on 17-11-86 in Crl. M. P. No. 6770-A/86 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ramanathapuram, claiming for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 250/- p.m. for herself and Rs. 200/- for her son and since the daughter got married, the petitioner did not claim any maintenance for the daughter. On this petition, the respondent/husband was summoned and opportunity was given by the lower Court for production of materials to prove their respective contentions. Ultimately on 9-4-91 i.e., after 5 years, the learned Magistrate passed an order enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 200/- for the petitioner/wife and Rs. 150/- for her son after elaborate consideration of the materials placed by the respective parties. While passing that order the learned Magistrate has specifically observed that the amount of award of maintenance as ordered should be payable from the date of petition viz., 17-11-86. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent/ husband on 26-4-91, preferred a revision in Crl. R. P. No. 13/91 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. The learned Sessions Judge, after consideration of the submission of either parties passed an order on 26-8-1991 modifying the order passed by the learned Magistrate to the effect that the maintenance can be payable from the date of the order of the trial Court and not from the date of application as ordered by the Magistrate and also the amount of maintenance was modified as Rs. 150/- p.m. to the wife and Rs. 100/- p.m. to the son. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners/wife and son have filed this revision.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Radhakrishnan learned counsel for the respondent. This revision has to be allowed on a simple ground which is detailed below.