SAFIQ MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Sharma, J. This is a revision against the order dated 2- 9-1996 passed by Sri V. P. Gaur, Judge Family Court, Bareil ly, in Misc. Case No. 60 of 1996 Km, Suman Bi and Ors. v. Safiq Mohd, whereby he en hanced the maintenance allowance of Km. Suma Bi, Hafiz Mohd. and Mohd. Riya/. each from Rs. 150per month to Rs. 225 per month from the date of the order under Section 125,cr. P. C.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(3.) THEN a similar view was taken by a Division Bench authority of Madras High Court M. Bulteen v. R. C. Bulteen, AIR 1938 Madras 721. THEN there was a Full Bench authority of the Bombay High Court, Prabhavati v. Sumatilal, AIR 1954 Bom bay 546. In this authority, it was said by the Full Bench. "the suggestion that the juris diction of Magistrate is limited to allowing the one hundred rupees in respect of main tenance of the wife and the children jointly is, in our opinion, an impossible construc tion once it is accepted that the right of the wife and of each child is an independent right. Such a construction would lead to extremely anomalous results. If, for in stance, a wife applies for maintenance for herself and for her children and the Magistrate allows a maintenance of one hundred rupees, and if thereafter an il legitimate child were to come forward and to make an application for maintenance, the Magistrate having allowed an al lowance to her up to the maximum of his jurisdiction would be prevented from making any order in favour of the il legitimate child. Or, a man may have more than one wife and he may have children by each one of the wives. If the suggestion is that maintenance can be allowed in a com pendious application to be made and such maintenance cannot exceed one hundred rupees for all the persons applying for maintenance, then in a conceivable case a wife or a child may be deprived of main tenance altogether under the section.