Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 670 (JHR)

Md. Aslam Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-13

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
ORDER By the Court.–Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Over an application filed under Section 125, Cr PC on behalf of the Opp. Party No.2, a sum of Rs. 600/- was awarded vide order dated 21.8.2006 passed in M-79/04 to the Opp. Party No.2 to be paid by the petitioner, as maintenance. In the year 2008, an application was filed under Section 127 (I), Cr PC, stating therein that the Opp. Party No.2 has grown older and has developed several kinds of diseases, as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 600/- proves to be inadequate for her livelihood. On such application, without there being any evidence with respect to increase in income of the petitioner, an order was passed enhancing the amount of maintenance from Rs. 600 to 2500/- per month, on the ground that by the passage of time of two years, there has been price escalation. That order was challenged before revisional Court and the revisional Court vide order dated 8.4.2009., affirmed the order passed by learned Magistrate under Section 127, Cr PC. Those orders are under challenged. 3. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Opp. Party No. 2 had been awarded maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month in the year 2006, but the same was enhanced to Rs. 2500 in the year 2008, without there being any evidence to the effect that there has been increased in the income of this petitioner, as such order passed under Section 127, Cr PC suffers from illegality. This aspect of the matter was also not considered by the revisional Court and, therefore, both the orders are fit to be set aside. 4. Admittedly, the amount of maintenance of Rs. 600/- was enhanced to Rs.2500/- per month, without there being any evidence of increase in the income of the petitioner. Enhancement was made, taking into account the fact that by the passage of time, there has been escalation in the price of things. 5. It appears that income of the petitioner was taken into account while initial order of maintenance was passed. At that time, as it appears from the record that the petitioner had been earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month towards pension on account of being Ex-serviceman. 5. It appears that income of the petitioner was taken into account while initial order of maintenance was passed. At that time, as it appears from the record that the petitioner had been earning Rs.10,000/- per month and was getting Rs.5,000/- per month towards pension on account of being Ex-serviceman. In course of hearing, it was admitted that there had been increase in pension on account of release of the Dearness Allowance twice in a year @ 8%. Keeping in view that aspect of the matter, the petitioner must have been getting more pension in the year 2008, when the amount of maintenance was enhanced. 6. However, keeping in view rate at which Dearness Allowance was increased, a sum of Rs. 1000/- per month would have been sufficient for the Opp. Party No.2 as maintenance. 7. Accordingly, orders dated 26.11.2008 and 8.4.2009 are modified to the extent indicated above. Thus, the Opp. Party No.2 is entitled to have maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. 26.11.2008. 8. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Application disposed of.