Bharat Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

No notice is issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondents to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.

This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.6.2008, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur and order dated 30.6.2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. Earlier, maintenance allowance at the rate of 300 per month to respondent No. 2 and 200 per month to respondent No. 3 was granted u/s 125. Cr. P.C. In the year 2008, an application u/s 127, Cr. P.C. was filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 for enhancement of maintenance allowance, which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of 800 per month to respondent No. 2 and 700 per month to respondent No. 3. Both the parties filed revisions before learned Sessions Judge, which were ultimately dismissed. Hence this petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Magistrate has increased the maintenance allowance from a total of 500 per month to 1,500 per month without any basis, whereas it has not been proved by evidence that income of the petitioner has increased in any manner.

In the year 2000, when maintenance allowance was granted u/s 125, Cr. P.C, respondent No. 3 was aged about 7 years and at the time of order passed u/s 127. Cr. P.C, she was aged about 12 years and was studying in class VII. Naturally, with the passage of time and growing up of respondent No. 3, her needs and requirements have increased. Besides this, after a gap of about 7-8 years, the prices have also risen considerably. In these times of high inflation and rising prices, maintenance allowance at the rate of 800 per month to the wife and 700 per month to the child of 12 years of age cannot be said to be unjustified in any manner. Rather, it can be said that the amount awarded by the Magistrate is on the lower side, which does not require any interference by this Court. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no evidence was given by him on the point of his income. However, whatever may be the income of the petitioner, being a father and the husband, he is bound to maintain his wife and daughter.

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.