Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 623 (PNJ)

Prito v. Suhar Singh

2002-07-01

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. In this criminal revision, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 6.1.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur setting aside order dated 9.11.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur allowing the application filed by the petitioners for enhancement of maintenance allowance in proceedings Under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against Suhar Singh respondent. 2. A few facts need to be noticed for adjudication of the present petition. On 6.3.1990, the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in the application filed Under Section 125 of the Code, Prito wife and Jaswant Singh, son of Gurmit Kaur, daughter (minors) of Suhar Singh was accepted and they were awarded maintenance amount of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 100/- and Rs. 150/- per month respectively. On 31.5.1996, the petitioners filed application Under Section 127 of the Code with a prayer for enhancement of the maintenance allowance already awarded. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ferozepur accepted the application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 400/- to each applicant as maintenance from the date of the application that is 26.8.1995. The said order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 6 dated 12.2.1999 which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 6.1.2000. It is this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, which has been challenged in the present petition. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners at the time of arguments. 4. I have gone through the stand taken on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of which the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 6.1.2000 has been assailed. Primarily, it has been pleaded that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has reversed the order of the Judicial Magistrate on technical grounds and failed to take into account the rise in prices which had taken place after the order dated 6.3.1990 awarding maintenance upon the application filed in the year 1990. It has also been stated that the petitioners have to incur the additional expenses on school fees and books, etc. of school going children besides the cost of upbringing them. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioners have to incur the additional expenses on school fees and books, etc. of school going children besides the cost of upbringing them. 5. It is manifest that the Additional Sessions Judge while appreciating the stand taken by the parties had taken into account that Prito, petitioner during the course of her statement had maintained that her daughter was studying in fourth class and her son was studying in second class and that prices of essential commodities have increased considerably. She, in her deposition, has not enumerated any other circumstance to support the claim made in the petition for enhancement of compensation. Makhan Singh, brother of Prito stated that there had been rise in prices of day-to-day articles and it was impossible for his sister Prito to maintain the children with Rs. 500/-. At the same time Makhan Singh did not say anything with regard to the income of Suhar Singh, respondent. 6. On the basis of above evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge found no justification to accept the prayer of the petitioners for enhancement of maintenance allowance and consequently set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Alteration in the allowance already fixed Under Section 125 of the Code can be allowed on proof of change in the circumstances claiming such alterations. The words "change in circumstances" have to be construed change in pecuniary or other circumstances and not change of the status of the parties. Mere allegation of change of circumstances in the application is not enough to establish the means of the husband. No doubt rise and fall in the prices and cost of living have to be construed but before enhancement could be allowed some definite evidence should have been led by the petitioners claiming enhancement. In the present case the stand of the respondent-husband was that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not studying anywhere. It was the duty of the petitioner to have examined some officials of the school where they were studying. In the face of this stand of the respondent and there being no evidence with regard to the exact income of the respondent on record, the Additional Sessions Judge was fully justified in setting aside the order dated 9.11.1998 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Thus, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.