LaL Chandra vs State of U.P.& Ors.

J. C. Mishra, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 4998 passed by Additional Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar allowing the application of the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Rajeshwari and her son Shonoo under Section 125, CrPC and awarding maintenance of Rs. 400 per month to the wife and Rs. 150 to the minor son.

Despite the list being revised, none appears for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist has offered to maintain his wife and son but the said offer was declined and, therefore, the order awarding maintenance is illegal. I do not find any force in this contention. The learned Judge has found that the revisionist subjected his wile to cruelty. In my opinion the refusal to accept offer was justified as she apprehended danger to her life.

The learned Counsel then contended that the amount of maintenance awarded is excessive. I do not find any force in this contention. The learned Judge considering the facts that the revisionist was a able bodied person and he could earn at least Rs. 1,500 per month by doing manual labour fixed the amount of maintenance. The amount of maintenance cannot be said to be excessive. The wife had adduced evidence that the revisionist had earning of Rs. 2,000 per month by sale of readymade clothes. The revisionist had given his income as Rs. 800 Rs. 900 per month. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the maintenance awarded to be excessive.

The learned Counsel then contended that the learned Judge without recording reasons had no jurisdiction to award maintenance form the date of the application. In my opinion, the learned

Judge had jurisdiction to award maintenance from the date of the application and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be erroneous.

Lastly the learned Counsel contended that in case maintenance is awarded the chances of amicable settlement between husband and wife could be over ruled. In my opinion, this may not be sufficient ground for refusing maintenance. application for maintenance was filed in the year 1997 and the elations and wellwishers had sufficient time to make attempt for helping the parties to arrive at amicable settlement. Moreover, an attempt was made by this Court on 291199 on the request of the revisionist but no solution could be evolved. In my opinion, there is little possibility of any settlement between the parties. However, it is open to the wellwishers to make attempt for amicable settlement even after decision of this revision and in case the husband and wife agree to live together. It shall be open to the Magistrate to modify the order.

The revision has devoid of any merit. It is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.