Ranjit Singh vs Balwant Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Ranjit Singh by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of the order dated 3rd December, 1988 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, enhancing maintenance allowance of the respondent from Rs. 100/ to Rs. 250/ and order dated 19th November, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the revision of the petitioner and enhancing maintenance of the respondent to Rs. 400/ per month.

Balwant Kaur respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 14th July, 1984. She having been neglected by the petitioner filed an application under Section 488 Cr.P.C. (old) for grant of maintenance which was allowed in the year 1960 and she was awarded maintenance of Rs. 100/ per month with effect from 12th September, 1960. She sought enhancement by moving application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. claiming that the petitioner having since retired as Major was drawing pension of Rs. 2500/ and he also owned six killas of land at village Kotla Raika and a residential house at Chandigarh valued at rupees four lacs.

In reply filed by the petitioner, the fixing of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month was admitted. It was, however, claimed that there was no justification for enhancement of the maintenance.

The respondent led evidence and also stepped into the witness box. The petitioner, however, did not enter into the witnesses box and felt satisfied by examining Pritam Singh, who denied the allegations made by the respondent. The learned Magistrate accepted the application and enhanced maintenance allowance of the respondent from Rs. 100/ per month to Rs. 250/ per month. In the revision Shri Hardial Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot while dismissing the revision petition filed by Ranjit Singh, accepted the revision petition filed by Balwant Kaur and increased maintenance allowance to Rs. 400/ per month from the date of application.

Shri G.S. Dhillon, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has urged that the enhancement was excessive and further that the court having not given any special reason for allowing enhancement from the date of application, the same should have been effected from the date of order.

As noted above, the petitioner did not enter the witness box to explain as to the total income enjoyed by him. The prices of necessities of life have gone up manifold and there being change in circumstances, the respondent was justified in asking for the increase in the maintenance allowance. Obviously a deserted wife has a right to ask for atleast her minimum needs and the grant of maintenance @ Rs. 400/ per month from the husband, who is a retired captain (as mentioned by him in this petition) cannot be described to be excessive especially when the petitioner has not been able to show that he had certain other liabilities to meet. I am thus of the considered view that the amount of maintenance awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, calls for no interference.

In Bhagat Singh v. Smt. Parkash Kaur, 1972 Punjab Law Reporter 952, relying upon Dr. T.K. Thayumanuvar v.Asanambal Ammal, AIR 1958 Mysore 190, it was held that the order of enhancement should ordinary be effective from its date and that existence of special circumstances must be established if retrospective effect is to be given to it. Applying the observation in the above quoted judgment, I accept the plea of Mr. Dhillon that order should be effected from the date of the order of the Magistrate.

Thus while keeping the enhancement intact, I direct that order of enhancement shall be effective from 3121988 i.e. the date of order of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. With this modification, this petition stand dismissed.