BHARABHAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed by the petitioner wife who had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE learned Trial Court granted the application of the wife and ordered that the petitioner -wife is entitled to get the some amount for his maintenance. That application was decided by the CJM, Alawar on 8th July, 1987, who after recording evidence, on the merits of the case granted Roshanlal a maintenance allowance of Rs. 200 per month. Aggrieved by that order, Premchand, the son, preferred a Revision petition which was decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar, vide his order dated 30th May, 1988. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge agreed with the finding that Roshanlal was entitled to maintenance -allowance from his son. But, afte considering the arguments and the fact about the income of the son, Premchand, he, maintaining the order of the learned CJM. reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200 to Rs. 150 per month. Again, aggrieved by that order, Premchand has filed Petition No. 611/88 under section 482, Cr P.C. Similarly, aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Roshanlal, the father, has also preferred Petition No. 573/88, before this Court. 4. Regarding granting maintenance to the father, there is a concurrent finding of the two Courts below. The learned CJM agreed with the contention of Roshanlal that he has no means to maintain himself, and Premchand being hia son, a duty is cast on him to maintain his father, and so, he was granted the maintenance -allowance. The learned Addl. Sessions judge also agreed with the finding that Roshanlal was entitled to maintenance allowance from his son, in order to maintain himself. Therefore, both the Courts below are of the view that Roshanlal is entitled to maintenance allowance from his son Premchand. This is a concurrent finding of fact. Therefore, while exercising the inherent power, this Court should not interfere in the concurrent ffnding of the two Courts below. Hence, regarding the fact of grant of maintenance allowance, I do not want to interfere in the orders of the two Courts below. 5. Now, remains the question of quantum of allowance. The learned CJM granted Rs. 200 per month, to Roshanlal, and on Rivision, the learned Add1. Sessions Judge reduced this amount to Rs. 150 per month. 6. The learned Counsel for Premchand, argued that Premchand is a senior -teacher and residing out of Aiwar with his wife and one child, and that he is not in a position to give even Rs. 150 per month, to his father. It was argued by him that Premchand gets Rs. 1, 000 per month, but, after usual deductions from his salary, he gets Rs. 903 in hand, per month, out of which he has to pay rent of Rs. 250 PM for his residential accommodation, and after giving Rs. 150 to his father, he is not able to maintain himself wife and his child aged 1 year. Showing this financial position of Premchand, the learned Counsel argued that the amount granted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, is high, and so, he prayed that this amount may be reduced. 7. Considered the arguments, Premchand is a senior -teacher. It was the duty of Premchand to have submitted a certificate from his employer about his salary. He has not filed any such certificate. He has simply stated that he is getting Rs. 1,000 in all, per month. A senior teacher certainly gets more than Rs. 1,000 per month, as his basic salay. Apart from that, he gets DA and other allowances also. But, Premchand intentionally avoided to show the correct salary and total amount that he gets per month, and this was the reason that he did not produce any certificate from his employer. It cannot be believed that a senior -teacher gets only Rs. 1,000 per month as total emoluments. He is Government servant and so this could easily be proved by Premchand that he gets only Rs. 1,000 per month, as his total empluments. Therefore, I do not agree that the monthly salary including all that Premchand gets every month. is Rs. 1,000 only. This shows that Premchand has not come with clean hands, before the Courts. The amount of Rs. 908 which he, according to him, receives in hand is the amount after all deductions from his salary. How much is deducted from his salary, was to be proved by Premchand. But, that too he was avoided to do. Therefore, he has not come honestly before this Court. Even believing that he gets Rs. 908 per month, he along with his wife and one child of I years, resides on rented premises. So, his monthly expenses are only with regard to himself, his wife and his I year child, which is not much to make him unable to give Rs. 150 to his father. He is paying Rs. 250 per month for his rented house. He must be getting house rent allowance also, from the Government, which he has not stated in his statement. What I feel if where was the necessity for him to hire a house of Rs. 250 per month ? Could't he live in a smaller house, at a lesser rent, keeping in view that he is duty -bound to maintain his old father, for whom a maintenance allowance of Rs. 150 was granted by the Court. He wants to to live a better and more comfortable life instead of giving two piece of bread to his old father. This is really a very shameful thing that a son cannot maintain his old father, by giving him Rs. 150 per month in these hard days. These days, when the prices of the commodities are so high, a monthly allowance of Rs. 150 for keeping a human being alive, is certainly not excessive. It cannot be imagined that a (sic) can live simply fulfilling his bare necessities an amount less then Rs. 150. I, therefore see no justification in reducing the quantum of maintenance allowance granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Since the date of pronouncement of the order by the learned CJM on 8th July 1987 till date. Premchand has not paid a single penny to his father. This is very unfortunate that inspite of the fact that no stay was granted to Premchand by the Court below he did not make any payment of maintenance allowance to his father. This shows his mala fide intention and so, he need no sympathy. Reduction of the maintenance allowance from Rs. 200 to Rs. 150 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, was without any reason or basis. I do not agree with the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while reducing the maintenance amount. 8. Consequently, the Petition No. 611/88 filed by Premchand is, hereby, dismissed and the Petition No. 573/88 filed by Roshanlal, is accepted. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge reducing the maintenance amount from Rs. 200 to Rs. 150 is set aside and that of the learned 2JM granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 200 per month, is upheld.