Khatabai and Others vs Babulal Gambhir Badgujar and Another

A.D. Mane, J.—In this Criminal Write Petition, the only question relates to the quantum of monthly maintenance allowance. The petitioner No. 1 is the wife, whereas petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the children of respondent No. 1-husband of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners were granted monthly maintenance allowance on 26.2.1982 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 60/1978 by the learned trial Magistrate @ Rs. 125/- per month to the petitioner-wife and Rs. 43.75 paise per month to each of the applicant Nos. 2 to 5. The petitioners filed their application being Cri. Misc. Application No. 77/1985 u/s 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the monthly maintenance allowance and the learned trial Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 16-5-1986 increased the monthly maintenance and directed the respondent No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 150/-per month to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 75/- to each of the applicant Nos. 2 to 5, totalling to Rs. 300/-. That was not accepted by the petitioners and they have approached the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 112/1989 and the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 27th March, 1989 granted Rs. 150/- per month to the petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 100/- to each of the children. Again the petitioners moved the Criminal Misc. Application No. 112/1989 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Erandol, for enhancement of monthly maintenance and by his order dated 26/6/1990 directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 175/- per month to applicant No. 1 whereas Rs. 125/- per month should be paid to each of the children. That order was, further, questioned by the petitioners in Cri. Revision Application No. 482/1990 before the Sessions Court. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the Revision.

The present Criminal Writ Petition, therefore, arises from the rejection of the petitioners'' Revision Application No. 482/1990 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 is in service of the Government as Extension Officer and he has been drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- and odd. No doubt, Shri Uday Malte, learned Counsel appearing for res. No. 1 submitted that the res. No. 1 is willing to pay in all Rs. 1,000/- towards maintenance of his wife and children. But, according to Shri R.M. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the children are school-going children and, in view of the present-day situation, the petitioner-wife finds it difficult to maintain them, even in that amount. According to him, the petitioner is justified in claiming Rs. 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 300/- each for the children. Therefore, in all the petitioner has claimed Rs. 1400/- per month towards monthly maintenance allowance.

I have given my anxious consideration to the claim of both the parties and, in my opinion, Rs. 1,100/- in all, would be the just and reasonable amount of monthly maintenance allowance to be granted to the petitioners. Rs. 500/- per month will be reasonable for the wife and Rs. 200/-per month for each of the children.

In the result, the Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to pay to the petitioners Rs. 1,100/- per month by way of monthly maintenance with effect from 1st April, 1993. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms.

The respondent No. 1 shall pay Rs. 500/- as the costs of the Writ Petition to the petitioners.