SURESH BHAIYAJI PURI Vs. VIDYA SURESH PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who happens to be the husband of the respondent, has challenged the order granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month by the Sessions Judge, Akola.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Criminal Application No. 291 of 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola contending that her husband has refused to maintain her. She claimed a maintenance of Rs. 500/ - per month. The learned Magistrate on hearing both the parties recorded the finding by his order dated 17 -11 -1988 that the wife was neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband and that she is entitled to get Rs. 250/ - per month by way of maintenance. This order was challenged both by the husband as well as the wife. Wife filed Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 1988 before the Sessions Judge, Akola for enhancement of the maintenance, whereas the husband filed Criminal Revision Application No. 20 of 1989 for quashing the order of maintenance. The Sessions Judge on hearing both the sides rejected the revision petition filed by the husband and allowed the revision petition filed by the wife by increasing the quantum of maintenance to Rs. 400/ - per month from Rs. 250/ - per month. It is this order which has been challenged by the husband before this Court.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 250/ - per month to Rs. 400/ - per month. While enhancing the maintenance, he has considered the following factors : (1) That the wife was taking education in College. (2) That the husband has sufficient means to pay. (3) The wife has no other source of income to maintain herself. In addition the status of the wife was also taken into account. Mr. Manohar, however, invited my attention to the rationale adopted by the Trial Court. There was no dispute before the Trial Court that the net monthly income of the petitioner exceeded Rs. 1,000/ - per month. Two circumstances were brought to the notice of the Court (1) that the father of the petitioner was a patient of paralysis and (2) the brother of the petitioner was reading in the school or college. The Trial Court has not applied its mind to the implications of these two circumstances. On the other hand, the evidence as led by the petitioner merely shows that these are the two members in his family. There is no evidence that the presence of these two members commands additional expenditure of a special nature. From that point of view, the conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate was also conjectural to some extent. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that the wife was attending College and she had to maintain some status, at least equal to the status of the husband. In these days of rising prices when the rupee has lost much of its value, a maintenance of Rs. 400/ - per month for one man would not be unreasonable.