J.H. AMROON Vs. R. SASSOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision arises from an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta raising maintenance from Bs. Vi to Es. 60 per month with effect from the month of September 1948, the application for alteration of the allowance having been made on 31et August 1948. It appears that the petitioner had an illegitimate child and that in the proceedings in the Presidency Magistrate's Court in 1935 he was ordered to pay Rs. 10 per month for the maintenance of the child as from the date of fling of that case. The allowance was afterwards raised to Bs. 12 per month, it is said, by the petitioner as an act of grace. The opposite priority, the mother of the child, applied for increase of the amount of maintenance to Bs. 60 per month on the ground that she was not in a position to maintain the child with the amount granted, The child is said to be a be y now at school.

(2.) THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate went into the allegations of the parties as to the circumstances of the petitioner and held that considering that the be y was being educated, the school fees amounting to Rs. 18 -8 per month, and considering the rise in the cost of living daring the last few years, Rs. GO "is just sufficient for the bare needs of the bay." He also considered the evidence as to the properties belonging to the petitioner and found that the petitioner's wife and the children by his wife were not dependant on the petitioner and have not been for the last 3 or 4 years. He also held that there had been a change in the circumstances be to from the point of view of the child's requirements and the capacity to pay of the opposite -party and fixed the amount of maintenance at Bs. 60 per month with effect from the month of September 1948 as already stated. The date of the order IS 8th November 1948.

(3.) MR . Talukdar however raised the point that the order of "retrospective payment at the fixed rate" is illegal. By "retrospective" is meant an order taking effect from a date prior to the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. He states that there is no decision on the point in this Court and neither am I aware of any. The authorities elsewhere are scanty. The annotated edition of Criminal P. C, quotes the case of Parvatham v. Mutha, a weir 650 as an authority for the proposition that