Sh. Uttaqm Singh vs Smt. Kokla Devi Verma

V.K. Sharma, Judge

Heard. By filing the present review petition u/s 114, read with Order 47, Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated 13.03.2012 passed by this court in Civil Revision No. 172 of 2011, Smt. Kokla Devi Vs. Sh. Uttam Singh Verma, wherein it was held as under vide para 5:-

There is no dispute with the proposition that ordinarily the amount of maintenance u/s 125 of the Code is taken into consideration at the time of granting maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and may be u/s 18 of the 1956 Act. However, it is done keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and on and overall view of the matter. In the present case, admittedly a plea to this effect was raised by the respondent-husband during trial of the petition u/s 18 of the 1956 Act that the amount of monthly maintenance being received by the wife u/s 125 Cr.PC should be adjusted against the amount of maintenance to be awarded to her u/s 18 of the 1956 Act. However, on consideration, such plea did not find favour with the court. It is not disputed that the order of maintenance u/s 18 of the 1956 Act attained finality without being challenged by the husband in the higher court. In such circumstances, as is the settled proposition in common law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree would apply to the present case as well and more so when the husband has an alternative remedy u/s 25 of the 1956 Act, wherein he may apply for alteration of the maintenance amount, particularly in view of changed circumstances such as his subsequent retirement from service. Furthermore, the total amount of maintenance to which the wife is entitled u/s 125 of the Code and Section 18 of the 1956 Act comes to Rs. 4,000/- per month and cannot be said to be on a higher side in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The prayer for review is based mainly on the proposition of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 536. Para 6 of the judgment being relevant is extracted below:-

We are of the view that the High Court was in error. The amount awarded u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was adjustable against the amount awarded in the matrimonial proceedings and was not to be given over and above the same. In the absence of the wife, we are, however, not inclined to go into any detailed discussion of the law.

On a bare perusal of the reasoning adopted vide para 5 of the judgment under review, which stands already extracted hereinabove, it is manifest that the same is essentially based on the dictum of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudeep Chaudhary Vs. Radha Chaudhary, supra. It being so, no case is made out for review of the judgment. 1st June, 2012. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being without any merit.