RAMESH PRASAD RAJAK Vs. RAMRATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal revision under. Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 8 -9 -1999 passed by 'the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Rewa in case No. 47/95 thereby enhancing the interim maintenance allowance from Rs. 300/and Rs. 200/ - to Rs. 1,000/ - and Rs. 1,000/ - to be paid to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are these: The respondents have filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against the petitioner for grant of maintenance on 21 -4 -1987. Allowing the application for grant of interim maintenance initially an amount of Rs. 50/ - was ordered to be paid to respondents as interim maintenance. Subsequently the said amount was enhanced and it was directed that the interim maintenance of Rs. 300/ - and Rs. 200/ - per month be paid to the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. This order was passed on 7 -5 -1995. Thereafter the respondent again filed an application that the said amount be further enhanced. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and by the impugned order dated 8 -9 -1999 directed payment of Rs. 1.000/ - per month as interim maintenance to the respondents No.1 and 2 each. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated dated 8 -9 -1999 the present petition has been filed. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these is no provision in Section 125 Cr. P.C. to enhance the amount of in term maintenance. Having given thoughtful consideration to the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that this contention cannot be accepted. There is no bar in the Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the amount of interim maintenance when the amount of regular maintenance can be enchanced under Section 127 Cr. P.C.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate has not considered the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the respondent No. 1 has received Rs. 60,000/ -lump sum in lieu of the maintenance this fact should have been considered by the learned Magistrate. Besides the respondent No.1 should be asked to adduce evidence regarding the financial capability of the petitioner. Under the circumstances it would be in the interests of justice if the matter is reconsidered by the learned Magistrate in the light of the facts and circumstances. The impugned order enhancing the interim maintenance is therefore quashed but the petitioner shall have no right to recover the amount of enhanced interim maintenance already paid to the respondents. The learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter. It is also desired that the main petition filed under Section 125 Cr. P.C. shall also be disposed of expeditiously. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Revision allowed.