AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.—The order dated 05.12.2007 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 in M.C. No. 16 of 1996 by the Family Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present criminal revision case.
The respondent herein as petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 in M.C. No. 16 of 1996 on the file of the trial Court praying to enhance monthly maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/-.
3.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has already filed M.C. No. 16 of 1996 against the respondent on the file of the Family Court for getting monthly maintenance and the Family Court, Madurai, has allowed M.C. No. 16 of 1996 in part and thereby directed the respondent therein to give Rs. 500/- by way of monthly maintenance to the petitioner. In order to enhance the quantum of monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-, the present petition has been filed.
The Court below, after considering all the contentions raised on either side, has allowed Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 filed in M.C. No. 16 of 1996 and thereby directed the revision petitioner/respondent to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- from the date of filing of the petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent has raised the following two points with regard to the impugned order passed by the Court below:
a) The respondent/petitioner is not entitled to get monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- since she is having sufficient means to maintain herself.
b) The present petition has been filed u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same does not say that the enhanced amount of maintenance can be given from the date of filing of the petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner has also equally contended that the respondent/petitioner has no wherewithal to maintain herself and under the said circumstances, she has filed M.C. No. 16 of 1996, wherein she has been given Rs. 500/- by way of monthly maintenance and since the quantum originally fixed at Rs. 500/- is not sufficient, she has filed the present petition in Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court below, after considering all the contentions raised on either side, has allowed the same and therefore, the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein as petitioner has filed M.C. No. 16 of 1996, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent. The Court below has granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- in favour of the respondent/petitioner and in order to enhance the quantum of monthly maintenance, Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 has been filed u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court below, has allowed the petition in part and thereby directed the revision petitioner/respondent to give monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- from the date of filing of the petition.
Out of two grounds raised on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent, now the Court has to analyse the first point in detail.
The main attack made on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent is that the respondent/petitioner is having sufficient means to maintain herself, but to prove the same, no clinching document has been forthcoming on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent. As stated earlier, the Court below has initially ordered Rs. 500/- per mensem and further the Court below has granted Rs. 1,500/- per mensem in the present petition. It is humdrum that the prices of barest things now-a-days are soring like anything. Therefore, the initial quantum fixed by the Court below is not sufficient and the Court below, after considering the present trend of life and also the prices of barest things, has rightly fixed Rs. 1,500/- per mensem and this Court is of the view that the quantum of monthly maintenance fixed by the Court below in Cr.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 is just and reasonable and the same does not require any modification.
Now the Court has to consider the second point raised on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent. The second point is that the Court below has directed the revision petitioner/respondent to give enhanced amount of Rs. 1,500/- per mensem from the date of application and the same is against law.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent has meticulously drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions;
a) In Pilli Venkanna Vs. Pilli Nookalamma and Another, wherein it has been clinchingly held that alteration of maintenance allowance is permitted only from the date of order and not from the date of application.
b) In Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shanta Bai, it has been held that alteration of maintenance allowance can be made from the date of order and not from the date of application.
At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Sections 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section 125 of the said Code, it has been explicitly stated that the order of monthly maintenance can be directed either from the date of order or from the date of filing of petition. Section 127 of the said Code does not speak that an order of enhancement of monthly maintenance can be made from the date of application. Therefore, it is quite clear that no specific provision is available u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable the Court to enhance monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the petition.
In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent, the Court below has directed the revision petitioner/respondent to give enhanced amount of monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- from the date of application and the same is totally illegal as per the decisions referred to supra and also as per the provision of Sections 127 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/ respondent can be accepted in part.
In fine, this criminal revision case is allowed in part. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The order dated 05.12.2007 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 77 of 2002 in M.C. No. 16 of 1996 by the Family Court, Madurai is modified as follows;
The revision petitioner/respondent is directed to give Rs. 1,500/- by way of monthly maintenance to the respondent/petitioner from 05.12.2007.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent has represented that already Rs. 30,000/- has been deposited in the Court below as per the direction of this Court and the same has been withdrawn by the respondent/petitioner. Since the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondent/petitioner, the same should be adjusted in monthly maintenance.