Komal vs State of U.P. and Others

B.K. Rathi, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the A.G.A. None is present for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

This revision u/s 397/401. Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the order dated 17.6.1997 passed by the IInd Judicial Magistrate, Mahoba u/s 125, Code of Criminal Procedure by which he awarded maintenance of Rs.300 per month to opposite party No. 2 and Rs.200 per month to opposite party No. 3 from the date of the application.

It is contended that the applicant had two and a half acres of land and had no sufficient means to pay the maintenance. That he is hardly earning Rs.6.000 per year and therefore, it is not possible to pay maintenance of Rs.500 per month. It is further contended that in the reply opposite party No. 2 has admitted the income of the applicant only Rs.6,000 per year.

In my opinion the contention of the applicant cannot be accepted. The applicant can earn much more amount from two and a half acres of land. It cannot be accepted that the applicant is earning Rs.6,000 per year only. The amount of maintenance of Rs.300 per month to the wife and Rs.200 per month to the son cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, I do not find any ground to reduce the amount of maintenance.

The other contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the amount has been awarded from the date of application. It is contended that a huge arrears of maintenance have become due, which he had no means to pay''. Considering the facts I accept this contention and modify the order only to the extent that the amount of maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order of the trial court.

With this modification, the revision is dismissed.