MAROTI HARIBA GOTWLE Vs. KUSUM MAROTI GOTAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner challenges order dated 13. 8. 2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions judge, Udgir in Criminal Revision Application no. 40 of 2002. By the impugned order, revision applicant preferred by the respondents was allowed and monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,500/- each was granted in their favour from date of the original application for enhancement.

(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioner is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent no. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is a school teacher. An application was filed for maintenance allowance by the respondents alleging that the petitioner refused and neglected to maintain them though he has got sufficient means. The said application under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was allowed and they were awarded maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 300/- p. m. and Rs. 250/- p. m. Subsequently, they filed an application (Misc. A. No. 179 of 2000) for enhancement of the maintenance allowance under section 127 of the Cr. P. C. Their such application was partly allowed by the learned judicial Magistrate (F. C.) and enhancement of Rs. 100/- each was granted in their favour. Feeling aggrieved, they preferred criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 2002. The learned Additional Sessions judge allowed the revision application and granted enhancement to full extent.

(3.) There cannot be duality of opinion that the petitioner - husband is legally bound to maintain the wife and son. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the prices of essential commodities are increased and so also the expenditure for education of the respondent No. 2 appears to have increased. The petitioner is also owner of agricultural lands. Still, however, the actual income derived by him from the agricultural lands is not duly proved. So also, the actual expenditure required for education of the respondent No. 2 is not clear from the record. The needs of the respondent No. 2 are not categorically stated. Assuming that the petitioner earns salary of Rs. 6,000/- p. m. , yet normally l/3rd of the salary should be considered as the proper amount for grant of maintenance allowance. It would be proper, therefore, to determine the amount of maintenance allowance in accordance with the 1/3rd of the home take salary of the petitioner -husband. Thus, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand) would be the proper amount to which the respondents are entitled. The quantum of enhancement ought to have been, therefore, only to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- (Rs. One thousand two hundred) for the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 800/- (Rs. Eight hundred) for the respondent No. 2 in toto. Thus, the original monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- could be enhanced to Rs. 1,200/- p. m. in favour of the respondent No. 1 and original monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 250/- could be enhanced to Rs. 800/- p. m. in favour of respondent No. 2, The learned Sessions judge observed that the salary of the petitioner -husband had increased after 1998. However, there is no record produced in respect of such increase in the salary. Considering these aspects, the writ petition will have to be partly allowed.