Manikkuttan Nair vs Girija Amma

D. Sreedevi, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.1999 in C.M.P. No. 251/99 of the Family Court, Kottayam,

The petitioner before the Court below is the revision petitioner. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner. The second respondent is his son. The petitioner''s wife and son filed a petition u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and obtained an order in their favour. The wife was awarded Rs. 350/- p.m. and the son was awarded Rs. 250/- p.m. In compliance of the order he paid the maintenance till the end of March, 1996. He filed the above C.M.P.C. 251/99 u/s 127, Cr.P.C. to cancel the order for maintenance to the wife. The learned Judge dismissed the application and hence he has filed this revision petition.

According to the petitioner, there is change of circumstances after the order for maintenance had been passed. Section 127, Cr.P.C. reads as follows :

"On proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving u/s 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he thinks fit : Provided that if he increases the allowance, the monthly rate of five hundred rupees in the whole shall not be exceeded."

He has also stated that the first respondent-wife got an appointment as Anganwadi Teacher and has been regularly getting Rs. 1,000/- towards her salary. It is also alleged that in 1998 the second respondent son became a major and he is also getting a regular monthly income. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the above C.M.P. to cancel the order for maintenance.

The wife when examined admitted that she is working as Anganwadi Teacher and is getting a monthly income of Rs. 735/-. The object of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy, by compelling a person to support his wife or child, or father or mother, unable to support itself. The maximum amount payable under this section is Rs. 500/-p.m. This amount is not in tended for leading a luxurious life. The powers of the Criminal Courts under Chapter IX are limited in scope and orders passed thereunder are subject to any final adjudication that may be made by a Civil Court between the parties respecting their civil rights and status. Since the wife is getting Rs. 735/- p.m. which is sufficient to keep her from starvation. She is not entitled to claim maintenance from the husband.

Learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that she has to maintain her son, who is studying for the final year B.Sc. and the amount awarded to them, namely, Rs. 600/- p.m. and the amount received towards her monthly salary are not sufficient for their maintenance. According to the petitioner, the son is also an earning member getting regular income. Admittedly, the son has attained majority. Therefore, the wife cannot claim maintenance from the husband for maintaining her major son. If the son finds it difficult to maintain himself, he can resort to appropriate remedy against his father.

The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the son is a student in the College and the amount awarded by the Court is not sufficient at all for their maintenance. On going through the facts of this case I find that the dismissal of the application is not legal and proper. The fact that the wife became an earning member itself is a change of circumstance warranting alteration of the order for maintenance, As she is getting more than Rs. 500/- p.m. towards her salary, she cannot claim maintenance from her husband. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The order for maintenance to the extent it affects the wife is cancelled.