JUDGMENT
Palok Basu, J.
1. These two matters can be conveniently disposed of together because they arise out of the same proceedings and others. Chandrika Prasad Pandey has filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 3481 of 1987 praying that the sum of Rs. 300/- per month allowed by the Magistrate as maintenance allowance payable to Smt. Kanti Pandey, which order has been up-held in revision, should be quashed. Smt. Kanti Pandey has preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 4212/- saying that the sum of Rs. 300/- per month was in-adequate and it should be enhanced.
2. Sri L.P. Singh learned Counsel appears on behalf of Chandrika Prasad Pandey and Sir Viresh Misra represents cause of Smt. Kanti Pandey. Both learned Counsel have heard at length.
3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the parties about the maintainability of two petitions under Section 482 Cr P.C. on the ground that the revisional powers have already been exercise before the Sessions Judge. These petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as concurrent proceedings should not be maintained. Simultaneously they also argued that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may if so thought fit be exercised in order to do substantial justice between the parties and no useful purpose will be served if these petitions are disposed of only on that technicality. In view of the facts involved it is desirable to end the litigation between the parties finally and therefore the merits are being judged.
4. Smt. Kanti Pandey was admittedly the wedded wife of Sri Chandrika Prasad Pandey which took place in the year 1949 and lived together for about 19 years. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Courts below. In this Courts below, though a half hearted argument was advanced about the solemnisation there is no reason to differ with the finding that Smt. Kanti Pandey was and is wife of Chandrika Prasad Pandey. The Courts below have recorded Categorical finding that Chandrika Prasad Pandey’s charges on the character of Smt. Kanti Pandey were baseless. In view of these two finding of fact, it can not be said that Smt. Kanti Pandey was not entitle to maintenance allowance.
5. Then comes the question of the quantum or the maintenance allowance. The Magistrate recorded the finding that Chandrika Prasad Pandey was earning about Rs. 1800/- per month, therefore, a sum of Rs. 300/- per month was awarded as maintenance allowance. It can not be said that the amount was excessive. However, Sri L.P. Singh argued that since Chandrika Prasad Pandey has retired the said amount of Rs. 300/- per month requires reduction. Sri Viresh Misra on the other hand says that the income of Chandrika Prasad Pandey has increased since then and that the retirement benefits have also accrued to him so she should have more. As it is, Rs. 300/- per month appears to be reasonable monthly maintenance allowance and should any occasion arise in the mind of the parties emboldening them to rely upon’ changed circumstances’, it goes without saying that it will be open to them to approach the magistrate in accordance with law.
6. In view of the observations made above, these two applications are dismissed. Interim order dated 12.3.1987 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3481/1987 is vacated.