Jaswant Singh vs Ranjit Kaur

S.S. Grewal, J.—This petition is directed against the order Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 7th August, 1989, whereby maintenance already granted to Ranjit Kaur u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) on the basis of compromise was enhanced from Rs. 170/- to Rs. 250/- per month on the application filed u/s 127 of the Code.

In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petitioner are that in the earlier petition u/s 125 of the Code, the trial Magistrate on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties granted maintenance allowance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 170/- per month, vide order dated 20th November, 1984. Later the wife moved an application u/s 127 of the Code for enhancement of the mintenance allowance fixed in her favour u/s 125 of the Code. Enhancement was sought firstly on the ground that the father of the husband had died after the fixation of maintenance allowance u/s 125 of the Code and her husband had inheritted landed property from his father. This aspect of the case was not found to be correct inasmuch as the father of the husband had died in 1982, much prior to the fixation of the amount u/s 125 of the Code on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties. The second ground on which the enhancement of maintenance allowance was sought concerns the price hike during the intervening period i.e. in between November, 1984 and 15th April, 1986 when the application for enhancement of maintenance allowance was moved. The trial Magistrate did not find favour, and, dismissed the application for enhancement of maintenance allowance moved by the wife. On revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge, enhanced the amount as already indicated above.

Counsel for the parties were heard.

The counsel for the husband submitted that the earlier order u/s 125 of the Code was passed on the basis of the compromise, and, at best the said order would amount to a contract between the parties with the seal of the Court affixed thereon. On this basis it was further submitted that if the aforesaid compromise or contract was to be varied then the wife should have first got that order set aside and thereafter could have again moved for refixation of the maintenance allowance.

The fact remains that neither of the two parties has so far applied for cancellation of the compromise referred to above and the said compromise or the contract still subsists. Perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 127 of the Code leaves no manner of doubt that on proof of a change in circumstances of any person receiving u/s 125 of the Code the monthly allowance or ordered under the same Section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife the Magistrate may make such an alteration in the allowance as he deems fit. It is thus quite apparent that in the instant case there would be no legal bar for alteration in the maintenance allowance already fixed in favour of the wife u/s 125 of the Code merely because the said order was passed on the basis of compromise between the parties. Nor it would be obligatory for the wife to first get the order u/s 125 of the Code set aside in her favour and then apply for alteration of the maintenance allowance u/s 127 of the Code. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismised.