AFR
Reserved
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 702 of 2006
Smt. Urmila Devi
Versus
State of U.P. & Another
*****
Hon'ble Virendra Singh, J.
1. Smt. Urmila Devi has preferred this Criminal Revision
against the impugned order dated 22.11.2005 passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 1613/2003 for enhancement of maintenance as
per provisions under Section 127 Cr.P.C, insofar as it relates to
enhancing the quantum of maintenance and directing OP No. 2
Sri Brij Mohan Lal to pay merely a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month
against the claim of enhancement of maintenance made by the
revisionist to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month.
2. I have heard both the parties and perused the records.
3. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that admittedly
in view of the material evidence brought on record, OP No. 2
had taken voluntary retirement from the post of Manager in
Allahabad Bank and accordingly, under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme, he had received ex-gratia payment to the
tune of Rs. 10,00,973.68, gratuity to the tune of Rs. 2,99,325/-
and contributory fund to the tune of Rs. 6,40,754/- on
31.05.2001. Apart from this, the opposite party is having 40
bighas of agricultural land in his name. Not only this, rather he
is also having regular income of Rs. 50,000/- per month from
the sale of building material besides other investments, i.e.
2
fixed deposits in the name of his two sons from his said second wife
and other landed property which was recently purchased by him on
02.01.2004. On the contrary, the revisionist is not having any source of
income of her own, nor she had anything in her name except one
dilapidated and small house constructed over 40 sq. yard which was
given to her by her father and that was the only place where she had
taken shelter ever since she was deserted by OP No. 2 in the month of
June 1978.
4. It is also contended that earlier there was a ceiling of maximum
limit to the extent of Rs. 500/- per month for the compensation to be
awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and therefore, a sum of Rs. 400/-
per month was awarded to the revisionist. But with the passage of
time, since not only the cost of living has increased, the said monthly
maintenance awarded to the revisionist is not sufficient for her
maintenance and accordingly, she had moved an application for
enhancement of maintenance awarded to her as per provisions of
Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bareilly
on 18.12.2003, thereby praying that the earlier maintenance awarded
to her @ Rs. 400/- per month may be enhanced and OP No. 2 who
was having sufficient money besides other regular sources of income,
may be directed to pay monthly maintenance to the revisionist @ Rs.
15,000/- per month.
5. It is also contended on behalf of the revisionist that the court
below has erred while enhancing the monthly maintenance from Rs.
3
400/- per month merely to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month only.
6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, having regard to the
financial capacity of OP No. 2, the maximum amount awardable as per
provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after the amendment in the Act
should be the amount of maintenance to be paid by the opposite party
to the revisionist, is finally contended by Revisionist.
7. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is no
illegality either on the facts or in the eyes of law in the impugned order
and the learned Lower Court has elaborately discussed the entire facts
and circumstances brought on record and has passed a reasoned and
reasonable order for enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 400/- per
month to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month against which this Revision
has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the light of the contentions of both by the parties, I have gone
through the facts and circumstances brought on record. The law
regarding this issue is very well known. Section 127 Cr.P.C. empowers
the court to alter or modify the order of maintenance on account of the
change in the circumstances of the party paying or receiving the
maintenance. The party is entitled to move for alteration of the order
when there is a change of circumstances. The changes of
circumstances as is stated in this Section, covers the changes in
primary circumstances as well as changes in other circumstances. The
changes may be in the circumstances of the paying party or of the
receiving party. Rise in the cost of living is certainly a change in the
4
circumstances. The changes must be in the circumstances themselves
and not in the proof of already existing circumstances on record. A wife
can claim enhancement in the amount of maintenance in the light of
increments which the husband has been getting in his service,
particularly because the wife had no other income and she had been
granted very minimum maintenance. Change of financial
circumstances is very much material for the application under Section
127 Cr.P.C. Even the husband may also claim the modification in the
maintenance order where the wife has become an earning member
with salary of more than the compensation awardable under Section
125 Cr.P.C. in the change of circumstances of such event.
9. In the light of law as aforesaid, the contentions of both the parties
and the facts and circumstances of this case, learned counsel for the
revisionist took recourse to the law laid down by this court in the case
of Shyam Sunder Sharma vs. Smt. Saroj Sharma reported in 2007
(3) JIC 663 (All) in which the maintenance for a wife and children was
enhanced on the ground that the husband contracted second marriage
and refused to maintain herself and the husband was a Government
Employee who was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The court
below had rightly granted the maintenance and rightly enhanced the
amount of maintenance from Rs. 600/- per month to Rs. 1,200/- per
month considering the devaluation of money due to inflation. Contrary
to it, the respondent took recourse of the decision by this court in
between the parties of this Revision (Brij Mohan Lal vs. State of U.P.
5
and Others in Criminal Revision No. 1274/2006), in which this court
has not found any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed in
the aforesaid Revision preferred by Brij Mohan Lal.
10. Looking into this fact that this court has already decided on
03.02.2009 that the impugned order is well reasoned, in which the
entire income of the revisionist has been assessed and taken into
consideration regarding the annual income of the revisionist of that
Revision who is the respondent in this Revision, and the amount of
maintenance is found very much perfect in the eyes of law as is
enhanced by the learned Lower Court, therefore, I do not find any
substance in this Revision, the facts of which have already been taken
into account for deciding the Revision.
11. Therefore, this Revision has no force and is liable to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly.
Date: 22.01.2010
Jaideep/-