Amar Singh vs Staya Devi

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Satya Devi moved a petition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor daughters and vide order dated 7.7.1984 she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 110/ per month. One of her daughters was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40/ per month and the other at the rate of Rs. 30/ per month. In the year 1986, she filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance on the ground that prices of necessary commodities had increased and her daughters had started going to school. Vide order dated 3.2.1988, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga enhanced the maintenance allowance payable to Satya Devi to Rs. 160/ per month and to each of her daughters at the rate of Rs. 60/ per month. Again Satya Devi filed an application for enhancement of maintenance allowance in the year 1990 due to changed circumstances. Her petition was decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot who vide his order dated 12.2.1992 enhanced maintenance allowance of Satya Devi to Rs. 250/ per month and that payable to her daughters Navnit and Manvir from Rs. 60/ per month to Rs. 200/ per month from the date of the application. Aggrieved by the order Amar Singh husband of Satya Devi filed the present Revision Petition.

Notice of the petition was given to Satya Devi and others and counsel for the parties were heard.

The learned Counsel for Amar Singh did not address arguments assailing maintenance allowance allowed to Satya Devi but he contended that maintenance allowance given to the two daughters was in excess of the amount that was claimed by Satya Devi in her statement and moreover, there did not exist circumstances enhancing the amount from the date of the application. It was argued that in her statement in the trial Court Satya Devi demanded maintenance of Rs. 150/ for each of her daughters but vide impugned order, the learned trial Court enhanced the maintenance amount payable to each daughter to Rs. 200/ without any basis. This fact was conceded by the learned Counsel for Satya Devi and he admitted that Satya Devi claimed only maintenance amount at the rate of Rs. 150/ for each of her daughters and not at the rate of Rs. 200/.

As regards the enhancement of the amount from the date of the application, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that no such circumstances were established by the wife to claim enhanced maintenance ***41provides that on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person receiving under Section 125 a monthly allowance or ordered under the same Section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit. But this provision does not specify and date from which the enhancement of the amount could be made. So, if retrospective effect was to be given, then the wife was required to show the existence of some special circumstances which were lacking in the present case. Reliance was placed on the case of Bhagat Singh v. Parkash Kaur and others, 1973 Punjab Law Reporter 953. In this case it was observed that the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to make enhancement in the maintenance allowance effective from the date when it was asked for but an order of that type should ordinarily be effective only from its date and the existence of special circumstances must be established if retrospective effect is to be given to it.

In the instant case no special circumstances have been brought to my notice, so I am of the view that retrospective effect should not have been given to the order allowing enhancement of maintenance amount.

As a result I partly allow this petition and reduce the maintenance allowance allowed to Navnit and Manvir daughters of Satya Devi from Rs. 200/ to Rs. 150/ per month each as that was the amount claimed by their mother for their maintenance. The order of enhancement shall take effect from February 12, 1992.