SUSHILA Vs. HIRALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed being aggrieved with the order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in criminal case No.91/14 on 31/07/14, whereby the order passed in miscellaneous judicial case No.34/2000 on 18/04/01 granting maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/ - p.m. to the applicant has been set aside.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that applicant has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance. It is stated that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with non -applicant/Heeralal on 12/11/96. Applicant gave birth to son/Ashish and daughter/Tanya out of the said wedlock. It is further stated that non -applicant was having illicit relationship with the wife of his deceased brother. On account of it, he used to ill treat the applicant. In the intervening night of 9 -10 April, 1999, husband of the applicant left the applicant. Thereafter, he was transferred to Bhopal. When it was came to the notice of the applicant, she came to Bhopal and it was also come to the knowledge of the applicant that respondent is residing with another woman. On account of it, applicant reached the house of the respondent and saw her husband with another woman. It is further stated that applicant is residing separately with her children since 09/04/99. She is unable to maintain herself and her children, who are studying in convent school. Respondent has not given a single penny for their maintenance. Hence, prayed that respondent be directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.15,000/ - p.m. The respondent/husband denied the allegation of ill treatment and having relationship with another woman. It is stated that applicant is residing in his house, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class have allowed the application and granted maintenance allowance @ Rs.800/ - to the applicant, Rs.800/ - to son/Ashish and Rs.700/ - to daughter/Tanya from 18/04/01. Being aggrieved, criminal revision was preferred which was allowed and respondent/husband was directed to pay maintenance allowance @ Rs.3,000/ - p.m. Respondent/husband has preferred an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. stating that applicant has been appointed as "Swasthya Karyakarta" vide order dated 18/02/08 in the pay scale of Rs.3050 -75 -3950 -80 -4590. Thus, she is able to maintain herself. It is further stated that both the children Ashish and Tanya have become major and the applicant is employed. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order granting maintenance. In reply, it was stated that applicant/Susheela is doing Govt. job. Her son is studying in M.A. and preparing for P.S.C. Daughter Tanya is studying in B.Sc second year. They are unable to maintain themselves. It is further stated that income of the applicant is not enough to meet the expenses. Respondent/husband has been promoted to the post of Deputy Director and is earning Rs.50 - 60,000/ - p.m. It is prayed that application be dismissed. Learned Family Court has allowed the application holding that wife is in Govt. job and she is receiving the salary and her children have become major and set aside the order of maintenance. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that amount of Rs.3,000/ - was ordered in the year 2001, whereas the impugned order has been passed in the year 2014, therefore, the need of the applicant/wife ought to have been considered in the context of the rupee value in light of the present price index. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that salary of Rs.13,000/ - is totally insufficient. Son of the applicant is still studying and preparing for the competitive examination and daughter Tanya is still studying to make good career. It is further submitted that amount of maintenance of Rs.3,000/ - p.m. was granted on the application of the wife alone, therefore, the award of maintenance could not have been disturbed solely because her two children have become major. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that wife/Sushila has right to live a descent life at par with the social status of the husband/Hiralal, who is working as a senior class -I officer and earning a salary of more than Rs.70,000/ - p.m. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside.