MAHABIR PRASAD Vs. SMT. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) This is a revision petition against the order passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhunjhunu in a petition under Sec. 127 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The non-petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi wife of the petitioner Mahabir Prasad moved an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C, for the grant of maintenance. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26th Oct., 1976 allowed a sum of Rs. 125.00 per month by way of maintenance to her and her daughter. Thereafter, non-petitioner submitted the present application under Sec. 127 for alternation in the allowances. The petitioner opposed the aforesaid application. The learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 3rd Dec., 1980 increased the allowances to Rs. 300.00per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner Mahabir Prasad has filed the present revision.

(3.) Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that there were no change in the circumstances and as such no order for alteration in the allowances could have been made under Sec. 127. It is contended that so far as the income of the petitioner is concerned that had already been taken into consideration by the Magistrate while passing the earlier order on 26-10-76. I am not impressed with the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The non-petitioner has led evidence of five witnesses including herself to show that the petitioner had gone to Bahrein and had served there on a salary of Rs. 5,000.00. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has stated that the amount which the petitioner was paid in Arab Countries was equivalent to Rs. 850.00 of the Indian Coin. However the petitioner has not led any, evidence except his solitary statement to show what was the actual salary given to him while employed in Arab Countries. Be that as it may, learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the fact that after the passing of the order dated 26-10-76 there is abundant increase in the cost price of all the commodities and keeping that fact in view he considered it proper to increase the amount from Rs. 125.00 to Rs 300.00. The petitioner is admittedly living in Bombay and non-petitioner who is living with his daughter at Jhunjhunu cannot meet her expenses in a meagre amount of Rs. 125.00per month. In these circumstances the amount of Rs. 300.00 fixed by the learned Magistrate in view of this change in the circumstances does not call for any interference.