JAMNA BAI Vs. LOTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.9.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.79/2007 by which the revision was dismissed and the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat in M.Cr.C.No.24/2005 was confirmed. THE applicant has also challenged the order dated 13.4.2007 passed by the CJM, Balaghat by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the applicant has an order of maintenance passed in her favour in the year 2004 by which she is getting a sum of Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter she preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.500/- to Rs.3000/- per month on the ground that four grand children are also residing with her. Dearness is increased and the applicant has become old. It was also stated that the respondent was getting a salary of Rs.6000/- per month. In reply the respondent has submitted that he is not responsible for maintenance of grand children and grand children can claim maintenance from their father. The applicant is also earning her wages by doing job of labour. At present the respondent is retired, and therefore his income is reduced, hence it was prayed that the application may be dismissed.

(3.) ON the contrary, the respondent has shown before the trial Court that he was an earning member. His salary was Rs.6000/- per month whereas now he is retired and being a pensioner his income is reduced to the half of the salary, and therefore he was unable to provide more amount to the applicant. In such circumstances, if dearness is increased, then still paying capacity of the respondent should be considered while increasing maintenance amount, and therefore by that pretext maintenance amount granted to the applicant cannot be increased. It is also apparent from the record that the respondent is unable to deposit the previous maintenance amount of the applicant, and therefore if maintenance amount is increased, then there shall be no option to the respondent except to go in jail in default of payment of maintenance amount.