Smt. Geeta Devi vs Ramesh Sharma

Brij Kishore Dube, J.

Arguments heard and perused the record.

This petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner/wife against the order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 96/2006 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the maintenance of the petitioner/wife to Rs. 2,000/- per month in place of Rs. 1,500/- per month awarded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gohad, District Bhind by order dated 27.3.2006 passed in M.J.C. No. 7/2005. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner herein who is wife of the respondent filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gohad, District Bhind on 22.3.2005 inter-alia stating that their marriage took place in the year 1978 as per the Hindu rites and customs. Since the petitioner was not having any issue, therefore, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his family members and in the month of November, 2004 she was kicked out from her matrimonial house by her husband and is not maintaining her. She has no independent source of income, however, the husband is having handsome earning as he is a Government servant and also having an agricultural land.

On its turn, the respondent/husband denied all the averments made in the application by the wife and submitted that wife is living in her parental house without any reasonable and sufficient cause. She is having sufficient source of income and earning from it while he is simply a Teacher and his economic condition is not good, and therefore, prayed that the application may be rejected.

The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gohad after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that the husband having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife which is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, awarded maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Aggrieved by that order dated 27.3.2006, the petitioner/wife preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad for enhancement of the maintenance as according to her the maintenance amount awarded to her was not proper and is not sufficient. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 4.12.2006 allowed the revision and modified the order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the Trial Court by enhancing the maintenance amount to Rs. 2,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition has been preferred for enhancement of the maintenance amount by the petitioner/wife.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-husband is a Government Servant and working as an Asstt. Teacher and as per his pay slip, which is filed by the petitioner, the respondent-husband is getting Rs. 27,321/- per month, after deduction of Rs. 3,200/- per month towards the GPF and GIS, the petitioner is getting the net salary of Rs. 24,121/- per month, therefore, the amount of maintenance be enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- per month as claimed by the petitioner/wife in the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C.

Per contra, Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and the remedy for the petitioner/wife is to file an application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C. for seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount before the Magistrate who passed the first order of maintenance. In this regard learned counsel cited the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Mst. Shanta Bai,

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Gyanwati Bai Gujar Vs. Bhagchand Mohna Gujar, and submitted that this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance is maintainable.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the criminal revision petition has been filed by the husband/petitioner against the order dated 14.6.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge enhancing the maintenance of respondent/wife to Rs. 400/- per month in place of Rs. 250/- per month awarded by the A.C.J.M. The High Court considered the facts and held that the order of enhancement of the maintenance amount could only be passed by the Magistrate who passed earlier order and, therefore, the enhancement in the revision was per se illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court in the case of Gyanwati Bai (supra) held that in exercise of the powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. the amount of maintenance may be enhanced.

It is pertinent to note here that the order dated 4.12.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge has also been challenged by the respondent/husband by filing a petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. This Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition by passing the following order on 23.9.2008:

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears to be correct that the petitioner was getting Rs. 10,002/- per month and his basic salary is Rs. 8902/-, therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The amount of maintenance awarded by the Revisional Court @ Rs. 2,000/- is just and proper. The question of enhancement of maintenance will be consider in the petition filed by the respondent vide M.Cr.C. No. 1538/2007. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Admittedly, the petitioner/husband is in Government service and working as an Asstt. Teacher. The Court below after appreciating the evidence on record and on the basis of pay slip Ex. D. 2 of the month September, 2005 found that the petitioner was getting Rs. 10,002/- per month and after deduction he was getting Rs. 8,902/- per month.

Learned counsel for the petitioner filed pay slip of the respondent/husband and according to which, he has received total salary of Rs. 27,321/- and after deduction of Rs. 3200/- towards GPF and GIS he received net payment Rs. 24,127/- in the month of May, 2011, however, this pay slip was not produced before the Court below, but the fact remains undisputed that the pay of the respondent/husband has been certainly increased from time to time. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed only for enhancement of the maintenance to Rs. 3,000/- per month in place of Rs. 2,000/- per month.

It is well settled that the wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living, which is neither luxurious nor penurious and also to lead a decent life yet, at par with the dignity of her husband.

Taking into consideration, all the material aspects of the case, including the social background and standard of living of the parties and rise in cost of living and the pay and salary of the respondent-husband, this petition deserves to be allowed partly. The order under revision is modified and it is directed that the respondent-husband shall pay monthly sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as maintenance allowance to the petitioner-wife. With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of.