Anil Kumar Juneja vs Sangita and others

V.K. Bali, J.

All out efforts were made in this case for a compromise between the parties. The petitionerhusband initially agreed to pay an amount of Rs.

1,25,000/ towards maintenance of his wife by way of permanent alimony as also his minor female child. He later backed out by saying that he is

not able to arrange for the money. An offer made to him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/ now and the remaining amount of Rs. 75,000/ by way of

instalments spanning over three years was also wholly unacceptable to him. It is in these circumstances that the matter has to be heard on merits for

decision of this petition wish is against the order passed by the Magistrate concerned allowing an amount of Rs. 800/ per month to the

respondentwife and a minor child as interim maintenance in an application preferred by the latter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

The sole point urged by the petitioner who is present in person in Court challenging the order aforesaid is that even though it was proved by

overwhelming evidence that the respondentwife was employed as a teacher in Shishushala School, Rewari and was getting an amount of Rs. 700/

per month, the fact aforesaid was ignored by the Magistrate concerned on a wholly untenable ground that the said employment was not on

permanent basis. There appears to be substance in the solitary contention raised by the petitioner but in view of the Court the same in the peculiar

circumstances of this case would not come to his rescue, thus, not resulting into substantial decrease in the amount. The Magistrate concerned in

considered view of this Court ought to have taken into account that the respondentwife was an employee getting an overall salary of Rs. 700/ per

month and by taking into account her income, interim order for maintenance for her and child should have been passed. However, the issue was

sidetracked by simply observing that she is employed on temporary basis. Suffice it to say that an order passed under Section 125, Criminal

Procedure Code is not a final order and it can be varied if the circumstances change. If the respondentwife was to be shown the exit door in her

employment, it was then within her rights to ask for and within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to redetermine the maintenance under Section 125

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in any case the factum of wife being employed could not be simply ignored.

This argument as mentioned above alone, however, does not detract from the merits of the case in granting maintenance to the wife and the

minor child. Petitioner according to his own showing is earning Rs. 1632/ per month. It is the positive case of the respondentwife that the income of

the petitioner is Rs. 5,000/ per month and he is earning by doing extra work as well. Assuming, however, that the income of the petitioner is Rs.

1652/, an amount of Rs. 800/ is not far in excess and circumstances perhaps demand fixing the maintenance of that amount or nearly that.

Maintenance when the prices are spiralling and skyrocketing does not mean only eating bare flour but it means some sort of living which may

permit body and soul to be kept intact and as well provide some basic minimum amenities. In such circumstances, therefore, it was more

appropriate for the Court to have clubbed income of both the husband and wife and then to see whether the wife is entitled to some maintenance.

An amount of Rs. 700/ is perhaps too meagre in the present set of circumstances and therefore, something more ought to have been given to the

wife so that she was able to maintain herself. If the husband parts with an amount of Rs. 400/ towards maintenance to the wife her income will

come to about Rs. 1100/ leaving still an amount of Rs. 1252/ in the hands of the petitioner. In so far as the child is concerned, it is not disputed that

the petitioner is bound to maintain her being her father. The maintenance allowed to the minor child is thus protected, but in peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case, the petitioner would part an amount of Rs. 400/ towards the maintenance for the wife. It requires to be highlighted that

the respondent wife would have a total income of Rs. 1450/ for herself and a minor child. Concededly the petitioner is also travelling extensively

being a salesman and is given some allowances for that. Put together his income would also be the same as that is being provided to the wife and

the child inclusive, of course, the income of the wife. The Magistrate concerned has granted Rs. 800/ to the wife and the minor child. By virtue of

the present order, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 750/ in all and it is only to that extent that this petition shall succeed. JUDGMENTed

accordingly, If any amount has been deposited towards maintenance by the petitioner the wife shall be entitled to withdraw the same. In the totality

of facts and circumstances of this case it is ordered that the trial Court would decide the case filed by the wife under Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure as early as possible.