Satinder Singh vs Baljit Kaur

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This is a revision petition filed by Satinder Singh, petitioner, directed against the judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar dated 20.10.1994. By virtue of the impugned judgment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition of the respondent and enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 350/ from the date of application.

The petitioner and respondent were married in 1973. They had two male issues. In 1983 petitioner retired from Defence service. Respondent is alleged to have been deserted by the petitioner and since then is living with her parents. On 30.4.1985, she moved an application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance. The application of the respondent was allowed on 16.4.1986 and maintenance was awarded at Rs. 200/ p.m. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner moved the Court of Sessions. Maintenance was reduced to Rs. 150/ p.m.

On 25.2.1989 respondent filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of the maintenance that had been granted earlier. She pointed out that circumstances had changed and that the income of the petitioner has increased. The application was contested. Learned Judicial Magistrate enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 250/ p.m. The maintenance was enhanced from the date of order i.e. 18.11.1993. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent filed the revision petition in the Court of Sessions on two grounds; firstly that maintenance should have been awarded from the date of application and secondly that sufficient amount has not been awarded as maintenance. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 350/ p.m. and allowed the revision petition and directed that maintenance should be paid from the date of the application.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, present revision petition has been filed.

The sole contention raised at the time of arguments was that the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and not from the date of application filed under section 127 Code of Criminal Procedure. It was urged vehemently that section 127 Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit the Court to allow alterations in the allowance from the date of application and necessarily it should be from the date of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

Section 127 is part of Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure. It provides for orders that can be passed for maintenance of wives, children and parents. Section 125(i) of the said Code specifically permits as to who can seek maintenance. Subsection (2) to Section 125 makes it clear that such allowance shall be payable from the date of order or if so ordered from the date of application for maintenance. Section 126 of the said Code provides the procedure that has to be adopted and where such a petition can be filed. Section 127 in the same sequence permits alterations of the allowance on proof of change in the circumstances. The allowance can be ordered to be altered on such an application. It is clear that section 127 specifically does not refer to as to from which date alterations of the allowance can be directed. This is so because under subsection (2) to Section 125 such allowance is payable from the date of order and if so directed from the date of application. The same principle would apply to the provisions of Section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner must fail.

In that event, learned counsel highlighted the fact that in any case the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order and not from the date of application. It requires no rementioning that the provisions of Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure have been enacted to help the destitute wives and children. It is to prevent vagrancy by compelling a person to support his wife by providing cheap and speedy remedy. Withholding of maintenance, during the pendency of the application even under section 127 of Code of Criminal Procedure may be gross injustice to the respondent when legal obligation is that of the petitioner to maintain her. The discretion exercised by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in this regard requires no modification. Under the circumstances, when maintenance was being altered, in all fairness, it should have been done from the date of application unless there were other compelling reasons.

For these reasons, the petition being without merits, fails and is dismissed.