PREMASILA DAS Vs. RAJKISHORE DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present revision petition, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional court was in grave error in reducing the amount of maintenance granted to the petitioner by the trial court from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month. In spite of sufficient notice, the opposite party has not appeared.

(2.) Both the courts below have held that because of the cruelty of the husband non-applicant, applicant-petitioner No.1 and her children have reason to live separately. Both the courts have also found that the husband-opposite party is getting Rs. 1,500/- per month as his salary. The 8/17/2006 revisional court has further held that by this time he must have been promoted and must be getting more. Even ignoring that aspect, there is a finding by both the court below that the non- applicant is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. He has no other member to feed except the petitioners (applicants). His defence that petitioner-applicant No.1 is earning rent, has, been accepted to the extent that she is getting Rs. 250/- per month as rent. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the trial court granted Rs. 500/- only to all of the applicants. On the revision by the non-applicant husband, the revisional court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 400/- per month. While reducing the amount, no cogent reason has been given by the revisional court except the fact that it held as follows: Considering the earning of the husband-O.P. and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf, I reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 400/- per month which is considered not a princely amount now a days. Before passing the aforesaid finding, it has held, appears from the evidence of the O.P. that he is working as a Sr. clerk in the office of the S.D.O. Bhubaneswar and is getting the salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. In the meanwhile the O.P. must have got his promotion and higher salary. This gees to show that the amount which is reduced by the revisional court is in fact a meagre amount from which it is expected that the four petitioners will survive. Even taking into consideration the amount of Rs. 250/- which petitioner No.1 is getting, the total amount of Rs. 750/- could not be said to hi sufficient for the survival of the petitioners. Courts below have ignored the principle of calculating the amount of maintenance which is to be granted. In fact, the amount of Rs. 1500/- should have been divided amongst the petitioners and the non-applicant which comes to Rs. 300/- per month each. In such case, the petitioner would have been entitled to Rs. 1,200/ - per month. Making less Rs. 250/- earned by petitioner No.1, it comes to Rs. 950/- per month. But, the petitioner remained satisfied even with the amount of Rs. 500/- per month and did not choose to file a revision for enhancement of the amount of maintenance.

(3.) For reducing the amount of maintenance granted by the trial Magistrate, the revisional court ought to have applied its independent mind and given cogent and satisfactory reasons, but it has failed to do so. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Others, it has been held: Section 125 Criminal P.C. is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Art. 15 (3) reinforced by Art. 39 Even, the words Tin the whole have been interpreted to mean that the amount of Rs. 500/- per month cannot be said to be outer limit for the wife and her children together. It is only in respect of each individual that the amount should not exceed Rs. 500/- per month. Even in the case, the amount of Rs. 500/- granted by the trial Magistrate to all cannot be said to have exceeded this, outer limit. Because of the fact that no sufficient reason has been given by the revisional court ins reducing the amount of maintenance, the order is laconical and is, therefore, set aside. The order passed by the trial Magistrate is maintained. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. Revision allowed.