Smt. Pramila vs Babau Pandey

Ram Autar Singh, J.—This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.5.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 110 of 2003 (Smt. Pramila v. Babau Pandey), wherein an application u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure has been allowed and the Respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 1000/-per month as maintenance allowance instead of Rs. 500/-per month as provided in the order dated 13.8.2003.

I have heard Shri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri K.D.S. Chanchal, learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record.

It transpires from the record that an application u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the revisionist in the court below for enhancement of maintenance allowance with this allegation that she had instituted Case No. 51/12 of 1992 for maintenance allowance u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure in which a sum of Rs. 500/-was directed to be paid as maintenance allowance. The revisionist instituted Criminal Misc. Case No. 110 of 2003 u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 5000/-in view of the fact that her father, who used to maintain her, retired from service and due to increase in the cost of living it became impossible to maintain herself out of meagre amount of Rs. 500/-per month, while the Respondent used to earn Rs. 20,000/-per month.

The learned trial court allowed the said application u/s 127 Code of Criminal Procedure and enhanced maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1000/-per month, aggrieved by which, the revisionist filed this revision. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Respondent categorically admitted in his statement that he used to earn Rs. 35,000/-per month by working as Professor in Swami Devanant Degree College, Larmath, District Deoria.

In view of which enhancement of maintenance allowance made by the trial court is improper and insufficient. In view of the fact and circumstances, it would be just and proper to enhance maintenance allowance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 5,000/-per month as monthly income of the Respondent has been found Rs. 35,000/-per month. Consequently this revision deserves to be allowed.

Thus this revision is allowed and the judgment and order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the court below is modified to this extent that the revisionist will be entitled to get Rs. 5,000/-per month as maintenance allowance from the Respondent with effect from the date of order passed by court below.