SUNIL KUMAR GROVER Vs. KU GUNJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's wife Smt. Chand Grover is living separately from the petitioner with her parents along with her 7 years old minor daughter Ku. Gunjan, the non-petitioner in this case. On 7. 4. 82 in proceedings Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 175/- per month for the maintenance of the non-applicant. It appears that parties being affluent could afford the luxury of prolonged litigation and that is how the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court level where Non-Applicant's mother had filed affidavit claiming Rs. 250/- per month for maintenance of Ku. Gunjan, but the S. L. P. No. 1111 of 1984 was rejected on 18. 2. 86. On 16. 9. 85, the non-applicant made an application Under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the amount of compensation. In that Misc. Criminal Case No. 31 of 1985 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khandwa, vide impugned order dated 12. 8. 87 the amount of maintenance has been enhanced to Rs. 500/-with effect from the date of application, which is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) IT was argued that the applicant had sought adjournment on valid grounds yet his application was rejected and the impugned order has been passed without affording him opportunity to rebut the plea for enhancement of amount. It was stressed that in view of the fact that the Supreme Court did not allow enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 250/- in the year 1986, the enhancement of the amount of maintenance to Rs. 500/- is patently erroneous.

(3.) IT is seen from the record of the lower Court that the case was adjourned at evidence stage repeatedly at the instance of the applicant. It appears that on this account the learned trial Court was constrained to reject the last application made by the applicant for adjournment of the case. The explanation tendered for seeking adjournment on the last date is that the applicant was entrusted with some important assignment by the University and, therefore, the petitioner could not attend the Court. The petitioner is serving in Engineering College, Jabalpur as a lecturer. He being in Govt. Service, his professional engagement is bound to keep him busy all the time. It is not made clear as to what prevented the applicant from approaching the University to accommodate him to enable him to attend the Court at Khandwa, particularly because the case was adjourned in the past more than once on his request. Therefore, the explanation tendered in this behalf is held to be unsatisfactory and the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in proceeding with the case and disposing it of cannot be faulted. However, I am prone to agree that the enhancement of the amount of maintenance from Rs. 175/- to 500/- is rather on the high side and deserves moderation.