BHANWAR LAL Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this instant petition under Sec. 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 4/2/2014 passed by II Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand, whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner under Sec. 127 of the Cr.P.C. and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount from Rs.275.00 to Rs.4,000.00 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 394/2012 titled Smt. Pushpa vs. Bhanwar Lal.

(2.) Breifly stated facts of the case are that, the petitioner and the non-petitioner are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized approximately 45 years ago. Due to matrimonial differences, the parties began living separately, and the non-petitioner (wife) started residing apart from the petitioner since the year 1976. Subsequently, the non- petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, wherein maintenance was granted in her favour at the rate of Rs.275.00 per month by order dtd. 14/12/1987, passed under the then unamended provisions of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that on 1/1/1990, the parties arrived at a compromise, which was submitted by the non- petitioner herself before the concerned court, with a request to cancel the recovery proceedings in respect of the maintenance amount. As per the said compromise, the non- petitioner executed a document dissolving the marriage and accepted a lumpsum amount of Rs.3,50,000.00 in full and final settlement towards future maintenance. Additionally, her son, Dilip, who was then residing with her, was also paid Rs.3,50,000.00 to start a business. These terms were further reduced into writing on 25/7/2004. The petitioner claims that out of the said amount, the non-petitioner deposited Rs.1,00,000.00 as a fixed deposit in the Post Office, Rani Road, Udaipur, bearing Account No. 110843, which yielded a monthly interest of Rs.680.00. Apart from this, the petitioner also constructed a house for the non-petitioner at Jaishree Colony, Udaipur, at a cost of Rs.15,00,000.00 for her residential use, which also comprised certain shops generating substantial rental income. Thereafter, in the year 2005, despite the receipt of the said amounts and property, the non- petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C., which was contested by the petitioner. After recording evidence, the court below dismissed the said petition on 11/12/2008, holding that in view of the previous compromise and the financial support extended to the non-petitioner, no case for enhancement of maintenance was made out. Simultaneously, the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the original maintenance order was also dismissed by the same order. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the non-petitioner once again filed a second application under Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Rajsamand, allegedly concealing the aforesaid facts. The Family Court, after recording evidence of both sides, allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance from Rs.275.00 to Rs.4,000.00 per month by the impugned order dtd. 4/2/2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.