PILLI VENKANNA Vs. PILLI NOOKALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the Order dated 24-11-1995 in Crl. R.P. No. 92 of 1994 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, modifying the order dated 11-7-1994 in Crl. M.P. No. 261 of 1988 in M.C. No. 41 of 1979 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam to the effect that the enhanced maintenance should come into effect from the date of filing of the petition and not from the date of passing the order.

(2.) The facts in brief resulting in filing of this Revision are as under : The revision petitioner herein is the husband of the 1st respondent here (for sake of convenience they are referred as Husband and Wife hereinafter). The first respondent-wife filed M.C. No. 41 of 1979 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month against her husband. After contest, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125.00 per month. The wife applied for increase of the said allowance by filing an application under section 127, Cr.P.C., in Crl. M.P. No. 261 of 1988. The learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, by his order dated 11-7-1994 allowed that petition and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 125.00 per month from the date of that order. It is further ordered that the husband shall pay the enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs. 200.00 to the wife from the month of July, 1994 on wards, on or before tenth day of each succeeding month. Not satisfied with the enhanced compensation granted at Rs. 200.00 per month, the wife preferred a revision against that order in Criminal R.P. No. 92 of 1994 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Before the learned Sessions Judge, two contentions were raised on behalf of the wife. Firstly the enhanced amount is inadequate and that she is entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month. Secondly the Magistrate ought to have ordered enhancement of the maintenance from the date of her petition instead of from the date of the order. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, considering the evidence on record, held that the wife is not entitled for enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month as claimed by her, and that enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per month is just and reasonable. But he modified the Order of the Magistrate directing that the enhanced maintenance should be paid from the date of the petition instead of from the date of the order. Aggrieved of that Order, the husband has come up with this revision. In spite of notice served on the wife in this revision, she neither appeared nor engaged a counsel on her behalf.

(3.) The short question which requires determination in this revision petition is, whether the Court has power to order alteration of allowance to be paid with effect from the date of application seeking alteration or it can order alteration of allowance only with effect from the date of order ?