KAILASH RANI Vs. MOHINDER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A patently perverse order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, has necessitated the filing of the present Revision Petition by Kailash Rani (wife). The facts briefly noticed are that the petitioner filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the grant of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month for herself and for the minor child, with the allegations which are these. The parties were married at Ambala Cantonment in October,1975. They lived together as husband and wife in Village Ugala. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born to them in January, 1978. It is stated that immediately after the marriage, the parents of the respondent started maltreating the petitioner for having brought insufficient dowry. The respondent not only remained a silent spectator to this matter but is alleged to have started maltreating the petitioner without any reason. Ultimately the petitioner was turned out of the house, while she was pregnant. She gave birth to the female child in the house of her parents. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in her favour by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ambala, on November 21, 1978 against the respondent. During those proceedings, the respondent had failed to pay the maintenance allowance pendente lite as fixed by the Court and for that reasons his defence had been struck off. The petition further alleged that the respondent was employed as a Conductor in the Haryana Roadways and was earning about Rs. 700/- per month. He was also possessed of movable and immovable assets.

(2.) IN his reply, the respondent admitted the factum of marriage but denied the allegation regarding maltreatment. He also admitted the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal right under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in favour of the petitioner. As regards his income, the respondent took up the plea that he was earning only Rs. 300/- per month. He also alleged that the petitioner was earning Rs. 500/- per month by stitching clothes. After considering the material on the record as produced by the parties, the trial Court fixed the maintenance allowance payable to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of her application. No order, however, was passed in regard to payment of any maintenance allowance for the minor child.

(3.) AS regards the Revision Petition filed by the wife, the learned Additional Judge chose to grant a total maintenance allowance of Rs. 180/- per month both for the petitioner and the minor child. It was also specified that out of the maintenance allowance of Rs. 180/- per month, the petitioner-wife would get Rs. 120/- per month and the remaining amount Rs. 60/- would be the allowance for the minor child. In this manner, the maintenance allowance granted to the petitioner by the trial Court i.e. Rs 150/- per month was reduced to Rs. 120/- per month. Making a mention in regard to this reduction in the allowance of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed 'The Revision Petition filed by the wife for herself and for her minor child is accepted". I fail to see the logic of this order as per which the Revision Petition of the petitioner-wife is accepted while her maintenance allowance is reduced to Rs. 120/- per month. In any case, no rationale or any other reason has been given as to why the maintenance allowance of Rs. 150/- fixed by the trial Court was reduced to Rs. 120/- per month in exercise of power of Revision. The Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has therefore, to be modified as the same is not only unjust and illegal but is without jurisdiction.