GIRDHAR LAL JOSHI Vs. SMT. KANCHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated August 3, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 1988, by which the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petition filed by Smt. Kanchan and enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 250/ - per month to Rs. 400/ - per month.

(2.) SMT . Kanchan filed an application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. against her husband Girdhar Lal Joshi for grant of maintenance to her. It was alleged in the application that she was married to Girdhar Lal Joshi on February 19, 1973, as per the Hindu customs and rites and she lived with her husband for sometime. Sometime thereafter, her husband Girdhar Lal asked her to fetch Rs. 15, 000/ - from her parents as he had to go for training. On her refusal, she was given beatings by her husband on August 17, 1977, due to which she received injury on her head. She was also, threatened to be done to death. Her brother, when heard about this, took her with him. The husband, thereafter, filed a petition for judicial separate in the Court of the District Judge, Doongarpur. In that petition for judicial separation, the applicant filed an application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance and in that proceeding, the applicant was allowed the maintenance of Rs. 200/ - per month. The husband, after the fixation of the interim maintenance, got that petition of judicial separation dismissed. It was alleged that she is ready to live with her husband but he is not keeping her with him. It was mentioned that the non -applicant is working as a Compounder and, therefore, the maintenance of Rs. 200/ - per month may be allowed to her. The non -applicant (husband) contested the application and denied all the allegations levelled by the applicant in the application. It was, also, mentioned in the application that he is ready to keep her with him but she is not living with him and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The original application for grant of maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was filed on November 25, 1978, but that could not be disposed -of and, therefore, on August 21, 1986, a supplementary application was made mentioning therein that as the application is pending for last ten years and the prices of essential commodities have risen so high and the salary of the non -applicant has, also, been increased, therefore, she may be awarded a maintenance of Rs. 600/ - per month. The applicant (wife) Smt. Kanchan, in support of her case, produced herself as PW. 1, Jayanti Lal, PW 2, Lalit Kumar PW 3, Leela PW 4, Sunder Lal PW 5 and Tulsi Bai PW 6. The non -applicant, in support of his case, produced himself as DW 1 and Laxman Singh as DW 2. The application Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was ultimately decided by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Doongarpur, by his order dated November 23, 1988. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the non -applicant (husband) is often seen with a lady, namely, Prabha and he has kept her as concubine. The Court further opined that he has turned -out Smt. Kanchan from his house and has deserted her. The Court, also, came to the conclusion that in the various proceedings, in different applications before various Court, i.e., the proceedings Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. ect., It has been mentioned that his mental state is so much worsten that he cannot live with the applicant Smt. Kanchan. From the evidence produced by the applicant Mst. Kanchan, the Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that she was cruely treated by her husband and her husband made false allegations against her with respect to her character and modesty and, therefore, she is rightly living away from her husband. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, came to the conclusion that she is entitled for the maintenance of Rs. 250/ - per month and, also, the legal expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/ -. Dissatisfied with the order, passed by the learned lower Court, allowing the maintenance was Rs. 250/ - per month only and that too from the date of the order, Smt. Kanchan filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur. The non -applicant Girdhar Lal Joshi, rest contended with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, by his order dated August 3,1990, allowed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and enhanced the amount of maintenance allowance from Rs. 250/ - to Rs. 400/ - per month, as, according to the learned Sessions Judge, the income of the non -applicant is about Rs. 1800/ - per month. It is against this order that the present revision -petition has been filed by the petitioner Girdhar Lal Joshi.

(3.) THE husband did not file any revision -petition against the order dated November 23, 1988, passed by the learned Magistrate awarding Rs. 250/ - as the maintenance to the wife and rest contended with it. It is only after the amount of the maintenance was enhanced by the learned Sessions Judge that the husband has preferred this revision -petition. The question for consideration, therefore, before this Court is: whether the learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, was justified in enhancing the amount of the maintenance from Rs. 250/ -per month to Rs. 400/ - per month ? It is not in dispute that the petitioner is getting Rs. 1800/ - per month as his pay. According to the learned Sessions Judge, even the petitioner was getting more than Rs. 1800/ - per month, but as it has been alleged by the applicant Smt. Kanchan that the husband is getting Rs.1800/ - per month, hence the Court accepted that amount as the income of the husband. The applicant has claimed that she should be awarded Rs. 600/ - per month as the maintenance. Looking to the exclusion of the pries, the amount of Rs. 400/ -per month, awarded of the wife for her maintenance, cannot make to be excessive. Even one person cannot make his/her both the ends meet in such a meagre amount looking to the hiking prices of the essential commodities. The learned lower Court, therefore, did not commit any illegality in awarding the maintenance to the applicant @ Rs. 400/ -per month from the date of the application. The order passed by the learned lower Court is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference. The order cannot be said to be, in any way, illegal, improper or incorrect.