Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3989 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. Harjinder Kaur

2006-10-17

T.P.S.MANN

body2006
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri District Yamunanagar whereby revision filed by the respondents was accepted and they were granted maintenance of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1500/- per month, respectively, from the date of application. 2. Criminal Misc. No. 38994-M of 2006 has also been filed by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur for the enhancement of amount of maintenance. 3. As both the aforementioned petitions arise out of one proceedings and same orders, they are being disposed of by one common judgment. 4. On 4.1.1993, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur of Rs. 400/- and Rs. 250/- per month, respectively. On 14.10.2003, both Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount of maintenance on account of change in circumstances. The said application was accepted by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri on 20.9.2005 vide which maintence of Rs. 400/- awarded to Harjinder Kaur was enhanced to Rs. 1600/- per month while in the case of Daljeet Kaur, it was enhanced from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 1000/- per month. Both Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur were not satisfied with the enhancement made by the Court and, accordingly, they filed a revision in the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 24.5.2006, Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri modified the order of the trial Court by enhancing maintenance amount to Rs. 2000/- per month to Harjinder Kaur and Rs. 1500/- per month to Daljeet Kaur and that too from the date of application. 5. Learned counsel for Bhupinder Singh, while challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri on 24.5.2006 granting Rs. 1500/- per month to Daljeet Kaur submitted that the said order has been passed on conjectures and surmises and without applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. In any case, the enhanced amount could be allowed only from the date of order enhancing the amount and not from the date of application. In this connection, learned counsel for Bhupinder Singh petitioner relied upon Ved Parkash v. Smt. Chanchal Kumari and another, 1980 PLR 304 by arguing that no special circumstances were shown by the wife and the daughter to get the amount of maintenance enhanced from the date of application. 6. In this connection, learned counsel for Bhupinder Singh petitioner relied upon Ved Parkash v. Smt. Chanchal Kumari and another, 1980 PLR 304 by arguing that no special circumstances were shown by the wife and the daughter to get the amount of maintenance enhanced from the date of application. 6. Learned counsel for Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur respondents submitted that the marriage of Harjinder Kaur with Bhupinder Singh was solemnized on 8.4.1985. From this marriage, Daljeet Kaur was born, who is now living with Harjinder Kaur. Further that the prices of necessary house-hold commodities and the cost of living had increased manifold and they found it difficult to pull on with meagre amount of Rs. 2600/- in all every month. It is also stated that Bhupinder Singh was serving as a Senior Shop Superintendent in the Carriage and Wagon Repair Shop, Railway Workshop, Jagadhri and drawing Rs. 16000/- per month as salary. 7. In the year 1993 when the first order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, granting maintenance to Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur, Bhupinder Singh was drawing Rs. 3770/- per month as salary. As per the latest salary certificate, he was getting Rs. 19,725/- per month. 8. Keeping in view the latest salary being earned by Bhupinder Singh and the fact that prices of daily house-hold commodities are increasing everyday and so also the cost of living, awarding of amount of Rs. 2000/- per month to Bhupinder Kaur (Harjinder Kaur) as maintenance and Rs. 1500/- per month to Daljeet Kaur cannot be said to be excessive. There is, thus, no scope for reducing the amount of maintenance awarded by Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 24.5.2006. 9. In the case of Ved Parkash (supra), the Court required the wife to show any special circumstance for getting the increased maintenance from the date of application instead from the date of order. In the present case a total amount of Rs. 650/- was awarded as maintenance to both Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur in January 1993. After a lapse of more than ten years i.e. on 14.10.2003, they filed on application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the amount. Their petition remained pending for about two years when they were finally awarded enhanced maintenance on 20.9.2005. This order was further challenged by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur by filing a revision, which was accepted on 24.5.2006. Their petition remained pending for about two years when they were finally awarded enhanced maintenance on 20.9.2005. This order was further challenged by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur by filing a revision, which was accepted on 24.5.2006. Although, Additional Sessions Judge did not give any reason as to why the enhanced amount was being ordered to be paid from the date of application instead of from the date of order, yet this Court can easily infer the fact that the respondent waited for long before their prayer for enhancement of maintenance was accepted. There is no allegation anywhere by Bhupinder Singh that Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur prolonged the disposal of their application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. Moreover, the enhancement was sought by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur after more than ten years of the passing of earlier order by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri on 4.1.1993. Thus, their existed special circumstances for Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur to claim enhanced maintenance from the date of application. 10. In view of the above, revision filed by Bhupinder Singh does not call for any interference and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, he is given six months time from today to pay the arrears of enhanced amount. 11. Coming to the petition filed by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur for further enhancement of the amount of maintenance, it may be seen that their petition, through filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., practically amounts to filing of second revision. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. specifically bars the filing of second revision. The said bar cannot be by-passed by terming the petition to be one under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, there are no adequate reasons or justification to enhance the amount of maintenance any further. The petition (Criminal Misc. No. 38994-M of 2006) filed by Harjinder Kaur and Daljeet Kaur is, accordingly, dismissed.