ORDER
Rajeev Gupta, J.
1. ‘ROTI’, ‘KAPDA’ our ‘MAKAN’, the three bare necessities of life, whether can be managed by the hapless and poor wife, petitioner Smt. Gyanwati Bai, within the amount of Rs. 150/-, awarded by the revisional court, as maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code? An answer in negative, to the above question, would trigger another question as to what would be the reasonable and appropriate amount, to be awarded, by this Court, to the petitioner wife, in this petition, filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, by enhancing the amount of maintenance, granted by the courts below.
2. Petitioner wife Smt. Gyanwati Bai, on the non-petitioner’s refusal to maintain her, had initiated proceedings against him, for grant of maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of J.M.F.C, Chhindwara. The trial court, on considering the entire material on record, found the petitioner wife entitled to grant of maintenance and, therefore, vide order dated 7-4-1981, passed in MJC No. 133/79 directed non-petitioner husband Bhagchand to pay an amount of Rs. 75/-, as maintenance, to the wife petitioner Smt. Gyanwati Bai.
3. Pulling somehow, on the above paltry amount of Rs. 75/- per month, for a period of about 8 years and finding it next to impossible to keep both her ends together, the petitioner wife again knocked the doors of Court, by filing an application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code, seeking enhancement of the amount of maintenance.
4. J.M.F.C. Chhindwara, though allowed the above proceedings, initiated under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code, to remain pending for an unreasonably long period of 7 years, but did not allow the above application and dismissed the same on very flimsy and untenable grounds, vide order dated 28-3-1996, passed in MJC. No. 232/94.
5. Petitioner wife Smt. Gyanwati Bai, with some rays of hope in her eyes, moved a step further by filing a revision petition before the Court of Sessions, against the dismissal of her application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, on a consideration of the alarming fact situation of the case, though found that the amount of Rs. 75/- per month, granted as maintenance in the year 1981 deserved an enhancement, proved miser by enhancing the said amount to Rs. 150/- per month only, which too again was unreasonably low.
6. It is with the above history of hardships that the petitioner wife, probably in her last attempt to get some relief from the temple of justice, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, by filing this petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.
7. Ku. Kausalaya Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with all vehemence at her command, strenuously contended that though the non- petitioner husband has 15-16 acres of agricultural land and is also keeping 30 buffaloes and cows and as such is possessed of enough source of income for maintaining himself, all his family members and for paying maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the petitioner, but even then the revisional court, while enhancing the amount of maintenance under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code, vide its impugned order dated 5-3-1996, has assessed an amount of Rs. 150/- per month as reasonable, appropriate and sufficient for the petitioner, for procuring food, clothes and shelter.
8. Shri P. Diwakar, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, with equal vehemence tried to cut through the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, by submitting that the total earnings of the non-petitioner husband is not even sufficient for him to maintain himself and his family members, who are dependent on him, and as a matter of fact he is not even in a position to pay the amount of maintenance of Rs. 150/- per month, fixed by the revisional court.
9. From the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the facts mentioned in the impugned order, it emerges out that the non- petitioner husband owns some irrigated agricultural land in his village. It is matter of common knowledge that an agriculturist, having agricultural land in the village, normally owns some buffaloes and cows also. By no stretch of imagination, a person having irrigated agricultural land and milching animals can be termed as a person without sufficient means. Thus, it can safely be inferred that non-petitioner husband Bhagchand has sufficient means not only for maintaining himself and his family members, but also for paying an appropriate, reasonable and sufficient amount as maintenance to his wife, petitioner Smt. Gyanwati Bai, so that she may also lead a life of a status matching to the non-petitioner husband.
10. The amount of Rs. 150/- per month, assessed by the revisional court hesitatingly, as a reasonable amount of maintenance which comes to Rs. 5/- per day only, in the context of the present sky rocketing price index of the essential commodities, is not even sufficient for maintaining a ‘pet’, what to talk of a human being, who requires a shelter and clothes also. Grant of Rs. 150/- per month, as maintenance, in these days is nothing but mockery of law.
11. From the above discussion it follows that the amount of maintenance, enhanced by the revisional court to Rs. 150/- per month, deserves to be further enhanced. The application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the year 1989. Under the provision of Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, as it then existed, the maximum the Courts could have granted as maintenance was Rs. 500/- per month. True, in these days even the amount of Rs. 500/- per month may not be sufficient for maintaining a fully grown up person. A wife, on the amount of Rs. 500/- per month, which comes to Rs. 17/- per day, cannot even save a single penny, for her rainy days, such as her illness. Be that as it may the petitioner wife, for the present, will have to remain satisfied with the amount of Rs. 500/- only, the maximum which the trial court could have granted while considering her application in the year 1996.
12. It goes without saying that the above amount, of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month has not been fixed by this Court for all times to come, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to file another application under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code, for further enhancement of Rs. 500/-, before the trial court itself, as and when the circumstances so warrant. If such an application is filed by the petitioner, the trial court shall consider the same, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs. 500/- per month only, in accordance with the law as may be applicable on the date of filing of such an application.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition, filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, succeeds and is hereby allowed. The amount of maintenance, granted by the Courts below to petitioner wife Smt. Gyanwati Bai, is enhanced to Rs 500/- per month. As in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court itself ought to have granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month, the above amount of maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month is made payable from the date of the trial Court’s order, which was passed on 28-2-1996.