MALKIAT SINGH Vs. TEJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this revision the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment dated 8.6.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur affirming the view taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla by which on an application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. the petition of the respondent-wife for enhancement of the maintenance awarded to her was increased from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 200/-. Application under Section 488, Cr.P.C. 1881, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Malerkotla had on 4.3.1958 fixed an amount of Rs. 30/- per month as maintenance payable to the wife. She had in 1994 moved an application for enhancement of this compensation of account of the fact that the prices had increased and the maintenance was too meagre to assist the wife. This application was opposed by the petitioner and after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the parties, the Court below had allowed the increase of Rs. 170/- per month. The petitioner was not satisfied with this view which had been taken by the revisional Court and has filed the present petition before this Court.

(2.) THE judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge is being challenged on the ground that the Court has not taken into consideration the assertion before it that the wife was owning 16 killas of land and, therefore, she did not need any enhancement in the compensation awarded to her. There is nothing on the record to show as to what was the income of the wife from the land which is alleged to be in her possession. In the absence of any such material it would not be possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the respondent now has sufficient source of income and, therefore, her prayer for enhancement of the maintenance allowance cannot be allowed as even if the land is chahi or cultivable no presumption can be drawn as regards the income from the land. In this view of the matter, as the monthly income of the petitioner even if he takes up the job of un-skilled labourer would come to atleast Rs. 1500/- per month. I feel that the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is not unjust or improper to require the intervention of this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Revision dismissed.