Smt Govindi Devi vs State of Uttarakhand and Dugar Singh

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged order dated 16.06.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2009 whereby said court has reduced enhanced maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month directed to be paid by the Magistrate to the petitioner, to Rs. 800/- per month.

Brief facts of the case are that admittedly, petitioner Govindi Devi got married to respondent No. 2 Dungar Singh in the year 1964. However, there was no issue out of the wedlock. It appears that without getting decree of divorce, the respondent No. 2 (husband) started living with another woman and through her he has two children. In the year 2007, petitioner Govindi Devi (wife) filed the Criminal Misc. Case No. 56 of 2002 claiming maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C., from her husband Dugar Singh (respondent No. 2). The Magistrate, vide his order dated 24.12.2002, directed the present respondent No. 2 Dungar Singh to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to his wife Govindi Devi. In the year 2008 the wife (Govindi Devi) moved an application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C., for enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- per month. The trial court after hearing the parties and recording the evidence directed the husband (Dungar Singh) to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month with effect from May 2008, to his wife Govindi Devi. Aggrieved by said order dated 09.09.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, Dungar Singh (husband) filed Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2009. the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Champawat) after hearing the parties reduced the enhanced sum from Rs. 2,000/- per month to Rs. 800/- per month. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner is a retired Hawaldar, who gets Rs. 4,700/- per month as pension apart from the agricultural income. It is further pointed out that with meager amount of Rs. 800/- per month it is difficult for the petitioner to pull on her days in old age.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that the income of the respondent No. 2 is hardly enough to maintain himself and his children. Needless to say that the petitioner being the legally wedded wife has a better claim for maintenance as against the another woman with whom the respondent No. 2 is living. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the daughter of the respondent No. 2 born through the another woman has already got married, and the only son is studying in school.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court is of the view that the revisional court has erred in law in reducing the enhanced maintenance to Rs. 800/- per month. Considering the economic status of the parties, and the circumstances of the case direction to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month to the petitioner Govindi Devi (wife) by respondent No. 2 Dungar Singh (husband) would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the direction of the respondent No. 2 Dungar Singh (husband) to pay maintenance to his wife Govindi Devi at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month with effect from May 2008. The impugned order dated 16.06.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Champawat, in Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2009, and order dated 09.09.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 23 of 2008 shall stand modified accordingly.