Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3094 (ALL)

Bharat Singh v. State Of U. P.

2010-10-05

S.C.AGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT: S.C. Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. No notice is issued to private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondents to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved. 3. This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur and order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lalitpur. Earlier, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.300/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.200/- per month to respondent no.3 was granted under section 125 Cr.P.C. In the year 2008, an application under section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondents no.2 & 3 for enhancement of maintenance allowance, which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance of Rs.800/- per month to respondent no.2 and Rs.700/- per month to respondent no.3. Both the parties filed revisions before learned Sessions Judge, which were ultimately dismissed. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Magistrate has increased the maintenance allowance from a total of Rs.500/- per month to Rs.1500/- per month without any basis, whereas it has not been proved by evidence that income of the petitioner has increased in any manner. 5. In the year 2000, when maintenance allowance was granted under section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent no.3 was aged about 7 years and at the time of order passed under section 127 Cr.P.C., she was aged about 12 years and was studying in class VII. Naturally, with the passage of time and growing up of respondent no.3, her needs and requirements have increased. Besides this, after a gap of about 7 - 8 years, the prices have also risen considerably. In these times of high inflation and rising prices, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to the wife and Rs.700/- per month to the child of 12 years of age cannot be said to be unjustified in any manner. Rather, it can be said that the amount awarded by the Magistrate is on the lower side, which does not require any interference by this Court. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no evidence was given by him on the point of his income. Rather, it can be said that the amount awarded by the Magistrate is on the lower side, which does not require any interference by this Court. As far as the petitioner is concerned, no evidence was given by him on the point of his income. However, whatever may be the income of the petitioner, being a father and the husband, he is bound to maintain his wife and daughter. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 7. The revision is accordingly dismissed.