ORDER
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 1.
2. The non-petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kishni is the wife of the petitioner Dhanraj. She filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance to her. That application was disposed of vide order dated 25th September, 1975 by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. Maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 50/- per month was granted to the non-petitioner No. 1. A revision petition was filed before the Court of Session and the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar enhanced the maintenance allowance to Rs. 70/- per month. On 27th January, 1987 Smt. Kishni-non-petitioner No. 1 submitted an application under Section 127, Cr. P.C. for enhancement of maintenance allowance. That application was allowed and the maintenance allowance was enhanced to Rs. 100/- per month. On 17th February, 1992 Smt. Kishni non-petitioner No. I submitted another application under Section 127, Cr.P.C. for further enhancement of maintenance allowance. That application was contested by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar allowed the application filed by non-petitioner No. 1 under Section 127, Cr. P.C. and vide an order dated 8th September, 1993 enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 250/- per month. Increased maintenance allowance was made payable from the date of the presentation of the application.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8th September, 1993 passed by the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner Shri Dhanraj filed a revision petition, which was disposed of by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 9th February, 1994. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner Dhanraj.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar and the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, the petitioner has come to this Court with a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. The petitioner has been contested by the non-petitioner No. 1.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-petitioner No. 1 is living separately for the last 20 years and that she has acquired the land belonging to her father who died a few years ago, and therefore, enhancement of maintenance allowance was not justified. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that enhancement of maintenance allowance under Section 127, Cr. P.C. can take effect only prospectively and not retrospectively, and therefore, the enhancement of maintenance allowance cannot be granted from the date of the application filed under Section 127, Cr. P.C. It is also submitted by him that the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional District and Session Judge were not justified in taking judicial notice of “inflation” and “fall in purchasing power of the rupee” and that they have dealt with the matter in a casual manner, and therefore, their orders deserve to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 1 has submitted that inflation is a universal phenomena, adversely affecting the economy of several countries including our own and the Court can and they must take judicial notice of the inflation as well as the reduction in purchasing power of the Indian currency, and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge have not committed any error by taking judicial notice of the inflation. It is further submitted by him that it is well settled proposition of law that a party is entitled to relief with effect from the date the cause of action arises in his/her favour and in any case with effect from the date the party moves the Court for grant of relief to him/her and in view of this general law. it is not necessary for the legislature to make express provision for grant of enhancement of maintenance allowance with effect from the date of the application filed under Section 127 Cr. P.C.
7. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the parties. Inflation is an universal phenomena adversely effecting the purchasing power of the currency and thereby raising the prices of commodities. It is well established that the entire human society is a creation of mankind. Values, acts and omissions of the human beings which are responsible for creating preservation or adversely effecting the human society or any part thereof, or any system thereof are manifestations of the lives and personal as well as collectively. Therefore, so long life and personal liberty continues to be protected by Article 21 of the Constitution and so long the Courts are obliged to act as custodians of the life and personal liberty of the human beings under Article 21 of the Constitution, the judicial notice of all those acts and omissions which are themselves a consequence of life and personal liberty and which are concerned with preservation, control, regularisation and deprivation of life and personal liberty must be taken judicial notice by the Courts. Section 114 of the Evidence Act gives ample authority to the Courts to take judicial notice of the facts, regard being had to common course of nature events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The power to take judicial notice of facts in accordance with Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be curtailed only by expressed provision of law and not otherwise. Section 56 of the Evidence Act provides that facts judicially noticeable need not be proved. Section 57 of the Evidence Act makes it obligatory on the part of the Court to take judicial notice of the facts mentioned in Clause (1) to clause (13) of Section 57. There is nothing in Section 57 to indicate that a Court cannot take judicial notice of facts, which are not covered by Clause (1) to Clause (13) of Section 57. Therefore, so far as the power of the Court to lake judicial notice of the facts of the case is concerned, Section 57 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act confer two different kinds of powers. The distinction between Section 57 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act is this that if under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, relevant fact is covered by one or more of the thirteen clauses of Section 57, then the Court is under a legal obligation to take judicial notice of the fact subject to the conditions laid down in Section 57 itself. On the other hand Section 114 of the Evidence Act does not make it obligatory on the part of the Court to take judicial notice of any fact, but empowers the Court to take judicial notice of all those facts, which the Court may presume to have happened regarding being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in relation to the fact of the particular case. Inflation, resulting in rise of prices gradually, fall in the purchasing of the currency and consequent deprivations of various kind to persons whose income is limited are facts, of which judicial notice can be taken under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. I, therefore, do not find any force in the submission that the judicial notice of inflation and rising cost of commodities cannot be taken by the Courts unless evidence is produced before it to prove the same.
8. The petitioner Dhanraj is admittedly the husband of the non-petitioner No. 1. His liability to pay maintenance is no more in dispute, because his liability to pay’ maintenance to the non-petitioner No. 1 was decided as early as in 1975. The learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the Learned Additional Sessions Judge have come to the finding that she is in need of enhancement of maintenance allowance. It is a question of fact, which cannot be challenged under Section 482 Cr. P.C. unless an error of law apparent on the face of record and causing mis-carriage of justice is shown. The amount of Rs. 250/- is hardly sufficient to feed one person in view of the present purchasing power of the currency. It is gradually falling on account of inflation. I, therefore find no merit in this petition. It deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
9. Since, the non-petitioner No. 1 had to contest this petition and for that purpose engage a counsel, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as costs to the non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioner is given. 30 days time to deposit the cost in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, failing which the amount shall be recovered by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1 in accordance with law.