SATISH PATEL Vs. PUSIA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 23-7-98 in Criminal Revision No. 64/96 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla whereby the Revisional Court has reversed the order dated 26-9-1996 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 159/95 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for setting aside the said order.

(2.) THE facts as have been exposited are that the non-applicant wife instituted a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming a particular sum towards maintenance but she was unsuccessful before the Court of first instance. Being dissatisfied the wife carried a revision and the Revisional Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- from the date of the order passed by the learned Magistrate, i. e. , 26-8-96. The said order is the subject-matter of present revision.

(3.) WHEN the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge a contention was canvassed by Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revisional Court could not have granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 600/- from the date of the order inasmuch as the maximum amount that could have been granted in favour of the non-applicant could not have exceeded Rs. 500/ -. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of the order passed by the Revisional Court placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ramfool v. Smt. Jagrati, 2001 (2) M. P. H. T. 234, to highlight that the grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 600/- was neither illegal nor unjustified as the learned Single Judge therein had held that the State amendment which had come into existence with effect from 30-5-98 is applicable to the pending cases and as the revision was decided after 30-5-98 the State Government which has enhanced the amount from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/-can be made applicable. In the case of Ramfool (supra) the learned Single Judge after referring to the language of the amendment and the objects and reasons in Paragraph 12 came to hold that the said amendment is intended to be made applicable to the pending proceedings. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge after referring to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of Dayawati and Anr. v. Inderjeet and Ors. , AIR 1966 SC 1423 and Laxmi Narayan Guin v. Niranjan Modak, AIR 1985 SC 111 expressed the view that there is distinction between the laws affecting procedure and those affecting vested rights. Eventually, the learned Single Judge in Paragraph 17 came to hold that where the orders are passed after 30-5-98 the Magistrate has powers to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/ -. In the order of reference the learned Single Judge extensively quoted from the case of Ramfool (supra) wherein the learned Single Judge observed that the amendment would be prospective and thereafter expressed the opinion that it would be applicable to the pending proceedings. The learned Single Judge who has referred the matter observed that as far as the applicability to the pending cases is concerned one does not perceive any difficulty. But the difficulty arises in regard to the observation "magistrates have the power to enhance the amount of maintenance in the cases in which orders are passed after 30th May, 1998". As the aforesaid observation was too broadly stated it was felt by the learned Single Judge that the said observation occurring in Paragraph 17 of the decision rendered in the case of Ramfool (supra) required reconsideration by a Larger Bench inasmuch as when the amended provision is regarded as prospective it can not be given effect to prior to that day. That is how the matter is before us.