GAFUR ANSARI Vs. AMNA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12.6.2014 passed in Misc. Case No. 11 of 2010 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga whereby the maintenance of Rs. 500/ - was enhanced and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1,200/ - as maintenance amount to the opposite party from the month of June 2014. Learned counsel has assailed the judgment mainly on the ground that the petitioner is aged 80 years and is suffering from various ailments. That he has no other source of income and is dependent on the pension. That he has to maintain other family members. That the court below, in the absence of any document, has assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs. 7,500/ -. That the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the opposite party is in possession of two acres of land which was given to the opposite party by the petitioner and she is capable of maintaining herself and that her two major sons are also capable of providing for her maintenance. That the petitioner has been paying the ordered maintenance amount of Rs. 500/ - from the year 2010 and has not defaulted since then. It is submitted that the enhancement of the amount by the learned Judge is not in consonance with law as the opposite party is not a needy person rather she has sufficient income from the agricultural land and is capable of maintaining herself, hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that the learned Judge has considered the evidence on record and has rightly held that the maintenance of Rs. 500/ - granted in the year 2010 is insufficient. That the learned Judge has rightly inferred that the petitioner is getting a pension of Rs. 7,500/ -. It is further submitted that in Criminal Revision No. 850 of 2009, preferred by opposite party, this Hon'ble High Court has assessed the pension at Rs. 8,000/ - and the petitioner, who has examined himself as PW -1 in the court has admitted that he is getting Rs. 6,000/ - as pension. That the court has rightly observed that he did not file the copy of the passbook neither the Account Number, hence the inference was drawn that he has been suppressing the actual state of affairs and accordingly, considering the rise in the cost of living, has directed the petitioner to pay an enhanced maintenance amount of Rs. 1,200/ - per month from the date of the order, i.e. from June, 2014. Learned counsel has submitted that till date the petitioner has not paid any enhanced amount to the opposite party, rather he is still paying Rs. 500/ - as the ordered maintenance amount since 2010.

(3.) Heard. Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated whereby either of the parties can file an application for alteration/cancellation of the maintenance amount. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the use of the expression 'change in circumstances' is not only with respect to the status of the parties rather it is also related to the change in pecuniary circumstances as also the escalation in the prices of the commodities. The contention of learned counsel that the sons of the opposite party are major and earning members and are capable to provide for her maintenance, cannot be treated as 'change of circumstances', as the provision of Sec. 127 Cr.P.C. has to be read conjointly with provision of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., which mandates that the husband who has sufficient means and income has the legal and moral duty to provide for the subsistence and maintenance of the dependent wife. Therefore, the petitioner cannot absolve himself of his responsibilities or shirk from the obligation to provide for the maintenance by pleading that the opposite party has sufficient means of income from the agricultural land. These aspects were considered by the learned court while passing the order under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. It is relevant to take notice that intrinsic value of money has diminished due to inflation resulting in devaluation of money. The purchasing power and value of Rs. 500/ - has diminished from 2010 till date. In the given situation the opposite party is entitled to a reasonable and just amount for her maintenance keeping in view the escalation in cost of living and the rise in prices of daily need articles.