ORDER
S.K. Keshote, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The Civil Revision Application No.1047/98 has been dismissed by this court on 16/11/98 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. In the Civil Revision Application No.1047/98, the petitioner challenges the order of the learned Third Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar dated 7/7/98, below Ex.5 under which he been directed to pay Rs.1,200/= p.m. and Rs.1,000/= p.m. as a temporary maintenance to the respondents Nos.1 and 2, his minor sons, respectively.
4. By this Misc. Civil Application, the prayer has been made for the review of the said order. The review of the order passed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not call for by this court for the reason that looking to the income of the husband petitioner, as taken out by the learned trial court this, amount does not seem to be towards higher side.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Third Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar on 11/10/98 ordered for the payment of maintenance @Rs.400/= p.m. to each of the kids, so, the total amount of the maintenance has come to Rs.2,200/= + Rs.800/- = Rs.3,000/-, which is highly excessive. It is further contended that after deducting this amount from the salary, what left with him is only Rs.3,250/=, which is hardly sufficient for meeting out his own expenses and to discharge his liability of maintaining his mother also.
6. The petitioner along with the revision application filed a document at page No.44, the order of the Third Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhavnagar dated 11/2/98 under which the maintenance of Rs.400/= p.m. has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner to each of his minor sons. The court while passing the order, rejecting the civil revision application has perused this order. It is to be noted that this order was also within the notice of the learned trial court at the time of passing of the order 7/7/98, impugned in the civil revision application.
7. It is true that the wife of the petitioner and the mother of the two kids is also in service. But it is a primary responsibility, duty and obligation of the petitioner, being the father to maintain his children.
8. Otherwise also, if we go by the income of the husband petitioner, then it can be divided into four units that is two for children, one for wife and one for himself and out of which, as the wife herself is in service and keeping in view her income and income of the husband she may not be granted maintenance, but the children are certainly entitled of their shares. This share comes to a sum of Rs.1,500/= p.m. each. So the amount of maintenance granted to these children is hardly towards higher side and that too to the extent which calls for the interference of this court in the application for review of the order passed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the facts aforestated, this case does not fall under the four corners of the order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Not only this, it is not a case where it can be said that it is just and in the interest of justice to review the order of this court passed earlier in the revision application. Nor the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are also otherwise attracted in this case.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that in case Rs.3000/= is permitted to be used by the wife, then she will live a luxurious life and the children will not be benefitted. Carrying this contention further the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amount of the salary which the wife respondent getting is more than sufficient for her own maintenance as well as the maintenance of the kids. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the kids are residing with the wife, that is their mother. I do not find any justification in this contention for the reason that looking to the high prices of the basic necessities of the life and essential commodities, the total amount of the salary of the wife and the amount of the maintenance awarded to the children under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is hardly sufficient to lead ordinary life what to say a luxurious life.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a supplementary argument that Rs.3,000/= p.m. may not be allowed to be used by the wife for the children and out of which some amount may be ordered to be kept in long term saving deposits. Prima facie I find some sufficient merits in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Out of Rs.3,000/= at least 50% thereof may be invested monthly in the beneficial return yielding scheme in a nationalized bank or post office recurring deposit scheme. However, for this the petitioner is at liberty to make an application to the learned trial court and on such application being filed by him the learned trial court is directed to decide the same in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made by this court in this order.
11. Subject to the directions aforesaid to the trial court and the liberty to the petitioner, this Misc. Civil Application is dismissed.