BANARSI Vs. GANPAT RAM & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sikar whereby the learned Magistrate had enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1,000/-. But, this petition is for further enhancement of the maintenance amount.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner wife, Smt. Banarsi Devi, had gotten married with respondent No.1, Ganpat Ram, according to Hindu rites and customs. However, subsequently differences arose between two. Therefore, they parted their ways. Since the petitioner was unable to maintain herself, on 06.02.1993, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance. The learned Magistrate directed that she be paid Rs. 250/- per month by way of maintenance. However, five years later, the petitioner moved an application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. Vide order dated 03.07.1998, the maintenance amount was increased from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., on the ground that the non-petitioner being an employee of Reserve Bank of India was getting a salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed that the maintenance amount ought to be enhanced upto Rs. 3,000/-. The non-petitioner No.1, husband, submitted his reply. In the said reply he claimed that after getting divorce from the petitioner, he has remarried and he has children from the second marriage. He further claimed that he has taken certain loans which he needs to repay. Moreover, he has to spend certain amount for the education of his two children. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.11.2003, the learned Magistrate enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- to merely Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, this petition for further enhancement.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that considering the phenomenal rise in price from 1998 till 2003 and from 2003 till present, a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- is highly unjust. Moreover, as of 2003, the non-petitioner was earning Rs. 17,000/- yet a mere maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was granted to the petitioner. Moreover, with the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, the income of the non-petitioner No.1 must have increased. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted enhanced amount of maintenance.