JEEVAN Vs. RAJUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-husband is aggrieved by the order dated 12-5-1992 passed by the 14th A. S. J. , Indore in Criminal Revision Nos. 315/91 and 326/91, whereby the learned A. S. J, has enhanced the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- for the wife i. e. N. A. No. 1 and from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- to the son i. e. N. A. No. 2. The learned A. S. J. has further directed that maintenance has to be paid from the date of the application. It may be stated that by order dated 3. 10. 1991 passed by the J. M. F. C. , Indore in Cri. Case No. 2/91, the Learned Magistrate has directed for payment of interim maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 200/- p. m. and Rs. 100/- to the son. He has directed for payment of the interim maintenance amount from the date of the order. The husband as also the wife and the son filed revision applications before the learned A. S. J. against the aforesaid order of the Learned Magistrate. The wife and the son were aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance as also date from which the maintenance was granted to them. Their case was registered as Cri. Revision No. 326/91. The husband was aggrieved by the order of interim maintenance itself and his application was registered as a Cri. Revision No. 315/91. The learned A. S. J. by a common judgment and order dated 12-5-1992 decided both the revision application and as stated earlier enhance the quantum of maintenance from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- for the wife and Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- for the son and further direction was given that the maintenance amount shall be paid from the date of the application. The revision application preferred by the husband was rejected. The present revision has been filed against the aforesaid orders.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has made endeavour to persuade me to hold that the wife and the son was not entitled for maintenance. I am afraid, the petitioner having failed before the Revisional Court so far as a grant of interim maintenance is concerned, he is not entitled to challenge the same, in the present revision application. Section 397 (3) Cr. P. C. Inter alia provides that no further application by the same person shall be entertained in case a revision application was already made by him either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. The petitioner as stated earlier aggrieved by the very order of interim maintenance has preferred the revision application before the learned Sessions Judge and the same was rejected. I am of the view that the learned A. S. J. has not committed any illegality much less grave illegality or irregularity calling for my interference Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. In this view of the matter I will not entertain the submissions made by the petitioner in relation to the order regarding the grant of interim maintenance itself.

(3.) HOWEVER, on an application filled by the wife and son the amount of interim maintenance has been enhanced and although the learned Magistrate has directed that payment be made by the date of the order, the same has been modified by the Revisional Court from the date of the application. The order of the learned Magistrate having been modified by the Court at the instance of the wife and the son, I am of the view that the husband's application in relation to that portion of the order is maintainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the application has submitted that there being no evidence about the income of the application, the Revisional Court exceeded in its jurisdiction in enhancings its quantum of maintenance.