KALPANA DAS Vs. ASIT DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has arisen out of the order dated May 22, 2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.95 of 2004 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereby allowing the said application with order of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- for the petitioner herself and Rs.500/- more for her child against the opposite party. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed revisional application.

(2.) Challenge is to the quantum of maintenance, that is, Rs.500/- for the petitioner herself and Rs.500/- per month for her son, in all Rs.1,000/- per month. Admittedly, the parties to the proceeding are the husband and wife and their relationship is still subsisting. Admittedly, the petitioner filed one proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. long time back and the learned C.J.M., Hooghly granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- for the petitioner and Rs.150/- for the child, in all Rs.500/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing separately along with her child from her husband and the husband is a police personnel under the Government of West Bengal.

(3.) Now the petitioner has claimed enhancement of the quantum of maintenance on the ground that now the salary of her husband has been increased and she is not in a position to cope up with all the needs with the meagre amount of Rs.500/- in all for herself and her child. Admittedly, the child is a handicapped person and he is depending on the wife/petitioner. Though the son of the petitioner has become major; as he is a handicapped person, the husband is bound to maintain the son. The petitioner has stated by evidence that the her husband earns Rs.10,000/- per month, but I find that in spite of notice, the husband did not contest the proceeding under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month each for both the petitioner and her son. In consideration of the price hike of the present day, it is yet difficult for the two to meet all the needs with some meagre amount of Rs.1,000/- while the salary of the husband has been increased to a considerable amount.