Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1822 (RAJ)

Banarsi v. Ganpat Ram

2011-08-26

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sikar whereby the learned Magistrate had enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 500/-to Rs. 1,000/-. But, this petition is for further enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner wife, Smt. Banarsi Devi, had gotten married with respondent No.1, Ganpat Ram, according to Hindu rites and customs. However, subsequently differences arose between two. Therefore, they parted their ways. Since the petitioner was unable to maintain herself, on 06.02.1993, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance. The learned Magistrate directed that she be paid Rs. 250/- per month by way of maintenance. However, five years later, the petitioner moved an application under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance. Vide order dated 03.07.1998, the maintenance amount was increased from Rs. 250/- to Rs. 500/- per month. Subsequently, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 127 (1) Cr.P.C., on the ground that the non-petitioner being an employee of Reserve Bank of India was getting a salary of Rs. 17,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed that the maintenance amount ought to be enhanced upto Rs. 3,000/-. The non-petitioner No.1, husband, submitted his reply. In the said reply he claimed that after getting divorce from the petitioner, he has remarried and he has children from the second marriage. He further claimed that he has taken certain loans which he needs to repay. Moreover, he has to spend certain amount for the education of his two children. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 12.11.2003, the learned Magistrate enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 500/- to merely Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, this petition for further enhancement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that considering the phenomenal rise in price from 1998 till 2003 and from 2003 till present, a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- is highly unjust. Moreover, as of 2003, the non-petitioner was earning Rs. 17,000/- yet a mere maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was granted to the petitioner. Moreover, with the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, the income of the non-petitioner No.1 must have increased. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted enhanced amount of maintenance. 4. 1,000/- is highly unjust. Moreover, as of 2003, the non-petitioner was earning Rs. 17,000/- yet a mere maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was granted to the petitioner. Moreover, with the implementation of Sixth Pay Commission, the income of the non-petitioner No.1 must have increased. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be granted enhanced amount of maintenance. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for non- petitioner No.1, has stressed the fact that non-petitioner has remarried and has two children whom he needs to educate and bring up. Moreover, the non-petitioner No.1 has taken certain loans which need to be repaid. Thus, it will not be possible for him to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The purpose behind Section 125 Cr.P.C., is to economically protect the women so that they do not take a wrong path in life. Undoubtedly, in the last twelve years, the inflation has galloped and even the prices of essential commodities have skyrocketed. Therefore, to expect the petitioner to survive merely on maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- is highly unjust and unfair. Not only legally, but also morally, is the duty of the husband to maintain the wife. Furthermore, the inability to pay is not a possible defence against an application filed under Section 125/127 Cr.RC. Considering the fact that the petitioner (Sic Non-petitioner-1) is gainfully employed with Reserve Bank of India, considering the fact that in the year 2003, he was earning Rs. 17,000/-, considering the fact that the said income must have increased after the Sixth Pay Commission, this Court directs the non- petitioner No.1 to pay Rs. 3,000/-per month to the petitioner from the date of this order. 7. Hence, this petition is, hereby, allowed.Petition allowed. *******