Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Smt. Kamaldeep Kaur wife of Balwinder- Singh and her minor daughter have filed this petition under Section 482 in Cr. P.C. for quashing of the order dated 6-1-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala vide which the amount of maintenance awarded to them at the rate of Rs. 1500.00 and Rs. 1000.00 , respectively, by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala under Section 125 Cr. P.C. has been reduced to Rs. 500.00 each. 2. In this case, the marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnised with the respondent on 9-5-1977. From this wedlock, a female child (petitioner No. 2) was born on 5-3-1998, who is now aged about 7 years. Petitioner No. 1 was a housewife while the respondent was working as stenographer in the office of Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. It is the case of the petitioners that after the marriage, the respondent husband and his family members started harassing petitioner No. 1 and gave beating to her on account of demand of dowry. In this regard, a criminal case was also registered against the respondent. It was alleged that after giving merciless beating to petitioner No. 1 she was thrown out of her matrimonial home along with the minor child on 17-5-1999, and since then she is living with her parents at their mercy. The petitioners were unable to maintain themselves as they have no source of income and the respondent has refused to maintain them. It was pleaded that the respondent is owning a residential house at Patiala and is getting monthly salary of more than Rs. 6000.00 per month. 3. The respondent husband contested the aforesaid petition on the ground that petitioner No. 1 herself has deserted the respondent. She herself went to her parents house along with the child. It was denied that the husband or his family members ever gave any beating to petitioner No. 1. It was further averred that petitioner No. 1 is doing tailoring work and earning Rs. 3000.00 per month. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is not able to maintain herself and her child. 4. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, after considering the evidence led by the parties allowed the application filed by the petitioners and awarded Rs. It was further averred that petitioner No. 1 is doing tailoring work and earning Rs. 3000.00 per month. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is not able to maintain herself and her child. 4. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, after considering the evidence led by the parties allowed the application filed by the petitioners and awarded Rs. 500.00 per month to each of the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition till 24-9-2001 (the date when amendment under Section 125 Cr. P.C. was made and the words Rs. 500.00 were omitted) and Rs. 1500.00 per month to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1000.00 per month to petitioner No. 2 from 24-9-2001 onwards. The aforesaid amount of maintenance was fixed keeping in view the fact that petitioner No. 1 was having no source of income and was deserted by the respondent who was drawing net monthly salary of Rs. 4930.00 after deductions. 5. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, the respondent as well as the petitioners filed separate revisions. The revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed whereas the revision filed by the respondent was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, and the amount of maintenance was reduced to Rs. 500.00 to each of the petitioners payable from the date of application. 6. The amount of maintenance was reduced on the following two grounds. 7. Firstly, that the petitioners had claimed only Rs. 500.00 each in their application, therefore, they cannot be granted more amount of maintenance what they had claimed in their claim application. It has also been observed that merely because the provisions of Sections 125 Cr. P.C. have been amended during the pendency of the petition. It is not the bounden duty of the Court to grant maintenance to the wife beyond the earlier upper limit of Rs. 500.00 . Secondly, that the respondent is facing criminal trial launched at the instance of petitioner No. 1, therefore, the payment of heavy amount of maintenance will cause undue hardship to him. 8. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners in this revision. 9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the reply filed by the respondent. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case both the Courts below have found that the respondent husband has deserted petitioner No. 1. 8. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the petitioners in this revision. 9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the reply filed by the respondent. 10. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case both the Courts below have found that the respondent husband has deserted petitioner No. 1. She is living along with her minor child with her parents at their mercy. She has a reasonable excuse for living separately and is unable to maintain herself and her child. It is also held that the allegations of the husband that petitioner No. 1 was earning Rs. 3000.00 per month by doing tailoring work, were not established. It has been found that the husband is owning a house at Patiala and is working as a Stenographer in Punjab State Electricity Board and is drawing net carry home monthly salary of Rs. 4930.00 . He further contends that by now the salary of the respondent might have been further increased as the aforesaid figure is based on document Ex. R. 2 submitted by him in the year 2002. 11. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in her statement. Petitioner No. 1 has categorically stated that she needs Rs. 3000.00 per month for leading the life in a dignified manner. He further submits that Section 125 Cr. P.C. is intended to fulfil the social object and the Court is duty bound to award just maintenance to the deserted wife. , He submits that the amount of maintenance should be sufficient for a decent and dignified life of the wife and her child. He also submits that the legislation, keeping in view the fact that Rs. 500.00 was such a meagre amount which would not be sufficient to maintain a person decently, and also keeping in view the social necessity and the legal and moral obligation of the husband or any other person, as mentioned in Section 125 Cr. P.C., in its wisdom, omitted the maximum limit of Rs. 500.00 .from the said Section, leaving it open for the Courts to award just and reasonable maintenance to the applicant/s, He submits that the benefit of the amended provisions will be applicable on all the pending proceedings, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a wrong view that such an amendment will not be applicable on the pending proceedings. 500.00 .from the said Section, leaving it open for the Courts to award just and reasonable maintenance to the applicant/s, He submits that the benefit of the amended provisions will be applicable on all the pending proceedings, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken a wrong view that such an amendment will not be applicable on the pending proceedings. In this regard, counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramfool Moolchand Mina V/s. Smt. Jagrati Ramfool Mina, (2001) 2 Rec Cri R 143 : 2001 Cri LJ 920. 12. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when the Court is required to award just maintenance or just compensation as in case of Motor Vehicles Act, then the Court can award compensation exceeding the claim made in the application. In this regard, counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa V/s. Gurudayal Singh, , wherein it was held that there is no restriction under the Motor Vehicles Act that the Tribunal or Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount. The functions of the Tribunal or Court is to award just compensation which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on the record. 13. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1500.00 and Rs. 1000.00 per month to Rs. 500.00 per month, as the amount of Rs. 500.00 per month is not just and reasonable amount as from this amount both the petitioners cannot sustain themselves and cannot have both time meals. 14. Though no one is present on behalf of the respondent yet in the reply filed by the respondent by way of affidavit, it has been stated that the amended provisions cannot be operated retrospectively until and unless it has been specifically made retrospective by specific expression. It has been further stated that the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly awarded maintenance to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month to each as they had claimed the said amount in their petition. It has also been stated that the Courts below have wrongly ignored the evidence led by the respondent that petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 3000.00 per month from stitching and tailoring work. It has been further stated that maintenance of Rs. 500.00 per month to each as they had claimed the said amount in their petition. It has also been stated that the Courts below have wrongly ignored the evidence led by the respondent that petitioner No. 1 is earning Rs. 3000.00 per month from stitching and tailoring work. It has been further stated that maintenance of Rs. 500.00 per month awarded to each of the petitioners is sufficient as both the petitioners are living in the house of parents of petitioner No. 1 and they are not required to spend anything in the said house. 15. Two questions are arising for consideration in this petition : (i) whether the amendment made in Section 125 Cr. P.C. vide Gazette Notification dated 24-9-2001 is applicable on the pending proceedings; and (ii) whether the Court can decline to grant maintenance more than the amount claimed in the maintenance application ? 16. In Bhagwan Dutt V/s. Smt. Kamla Devi, , the Apex Court while interpreting the unamended Sections 488, 489 and 490 Cr. P.C., has observed that the provisions are intended to fulfil a social purpose. Their object is to compel a man to perform the moral obligation which he owes to society in respect of his wife and children. By providing a simple, speedy but limited relief. They seek to ensure that the neglected wife and children are not left beggared and destituted on the scrap-heap of society and thereby driven to a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence. With this object, the jurisdiction was conferred on a Magistrate under Section 125 Cr. P.C. which confers power upon the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made, to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance. 17. Before the amendment made in 2001, the Magistrate could have awarded maximum Rs. 500.00 to an applicant under Section 125 Cr. P.C. Vide Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001, the words "not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole" were omitted with effect from 24-9-2001. The aforesaid amendment was made with objects and reasons that in view of the price rise and cost of living, retention of a maximum ceiling is not justified. Therefore, it was decided to remove the ceiling of the maximum amount. This amendment is a social piece of legislation and has been made to achieve a social object. The aforesaid amendment was made with objects and reasons that in view of the price rise and cost of living, retention of a maximum ceiling is not justified. Therefore, it was decided to remove the ceiling of the maximum amount. This amendment is a social piece of legislation and has been made to achieve a social object. Therefore, it should be interpreted liberally. 18. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal V/s. Mrs. Veena Kaushal, , a question arose whether the Magistrate can award monthly maintenance for wife, child, mother and father together and the ceiling of monthly allowance not exceeding Rs. 500.00 "in the whole" mean that the total award cannot exceed Rs. 500.00 . Answering the question, the Hon ble Apex Court has held as under (Para 9) :- "This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that Sections of statutes calling for construction by Courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional sympathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alteratives which advances the cause - the cause of the deralicts." 19. In Ramfool Moolchand Minas case (2001 Cri LJ 920) (supra), a similar question came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court as by a local amendment, the State of Madhya Pradesh had amended Section 125 Cr. P.C. and enhanced the amount of Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 3000.00 . The question arose before the Madhya Pradesh High Court whether the aforesaid amendment would be prospective or retrospective in the sense that it will be applicable on the pending proceedings. It was held that since the aforesaid amendment is a social piece of legislation, therefore, the same will be applicable to all the pending proceedings decided after the said date. It was further held therein as under (at pp. It was held that since the aforesaid amendment is a social piece of legislation, therefore, the same will be applicable to all the pending proceedings decided after the said date. It was further held therein as under (at pp. 923 and 924 of Cri LJ) :- "...in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons the aforesaid amendment should be applicable on the pending proceedings and in the cases where the orders are passed after 30th May, 1998 the Magistrate has powers to enhance the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500.00 up to Rs. 3.000.00 . The language used in the Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly intends that this amendment is applicable on the pending proceedings. The reason, since the existing amount of maintenance allowance has become insufficient in the present day circumstances, and the amendment further says that in view of the above it has been decided to amend Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, from the plain reading of Statement of Objects and Reasons it is clear that the intention of the legislature is to consider the present day circumstances in which the amount of maintenance allowance of Rs. 500.00 has become insufficient and to provide benefit to the destitutes and when the legislature wants to take into consideration the present day circumstances, it would clearly mean that the amendment shall be applicable though .prospectively with effect from 30th May, 1998 when it was first published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette (extraordinary) but would amount to be applicable on the present day pending proceedings. The intention of the Madhya Pradesh Legislature is very clear to provide benefit to the members of the weaker section of the society like wife, children or the old parents who are not having any source of income and are unable to maintain themselves. Having regard to this social object the amended provisions have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the Legislature because dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions, is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Having regard to this social object the amended provisions have to be given a liberal construction to fulfil and achieve this intention of the Legislature because dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions, is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation. Therefore, looking to the intention spelled out by the Statement of Objects and Reasons, this Court is of the view that the amendment is applicable to the pending proceedings and the Magistrates have power to enhance the amount of maintenance in the cases in which the orders are passed after 30th May, 1998." 20. In view of the aforesaid proposition, I am of the opinion that the amendment made in Section 125 Cr. P.C. is a social piece of legislation and it is applicable on all the pending cases and the Court is competent to award the maintenance of more than Rs. 500.00 even on those applications which were filed prior to the said amendment. 21. Now the question which requires determination is whether the Magistrate is competent to award the maintenance more than the amount claimed by the applicant in his maintenance application. Section 125 Cr. P.C. provides that a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct (emphasis supplied). Under this provision, it is the duty of the Magistrate to provide just maintenance to the deserted wife or destitute child. The amount of maintenance should be such that a wife is able to maintain herself decently and with dignity. If after considering the material placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate thinks that a particular amount is a reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application. If after considering the material placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate thinks that a particular amount is a reasonable amount, he is required to award the said amount as maintenance, and in my opinion, he cannot refuse to grant the said amount merely because the claimant has not claimed such an amount in her application. Once the legislation has cast duty on the Court to award just and reasonable amount of maintenance in the facts and circumstances of a case, the same cannot be denied on mere technicalities i.e. the claimants had not claimed the said amount in their application. Though the words "just and reasonable" have not been used in Section 125 Cr. P.C., but in my opinion, the aforesaid words can be read in the expression as the Magistrate thinks fit". Once discretion has been given to the Court to award an amount of maintenance, it will always be just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of a case. There is no specific restriction under Section 125 Cr. P.C. that the Magistrate cannot award more than the amount claimed in the petition. Rather, duty has been imposed on the Magistrate to award compensation which he thinks fit. In such situation, the Court is not debarred from Awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount. 22. Thus, in my opinion, the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the trial Court has committed illegality while awarding maintenance beyond the amount claimed by the petitioners after the amendment is wholly wrong and unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was fully justified in awarding Rs. 1500.00 and Rs. 1000/ - per month to each of the petitioners keeping in view the income of the respondent and the present rising prices. In my opinion, the aforesaid amount will not be excessive at all for survival of a person in the survival of fittest society and to live in a dignified manner, particularly keeping in view the income of the respondent which might have been increased by now. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated -1-2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala is set aside and the order dated 24-5-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala is restored.