Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 202 (HP)

Chain Singh v. Kavita

2017-03-17

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandaghat, Solan in Case No. 131/4 of 2013, dated 21.10.2014, vide which on an application filed by the present respondent under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Court below has enhanced the amount of maintenance ordered to be paid by the present petitioner to respondent-wife from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4500/-. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this case are that respondent claiming herself to be legally wedded wife of present petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 2002 and maintenance to the tune of Rs.500/- was awarded to her initially and thereafter, said amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs.2500/- in the year 2004 on the basis of an application which had been so filed by the respondent before the learned Court below. Thereafter, in the year 2013, again an application was preferred by the respondent under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein that the maintenance earlier awarded in her favour be enhanced taking into consideration the considerable elapse of time as well as increase in the price index and also in view of the factum of income of husband having increased considerably. Learned trial Court vide order under challenge ordered the enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs.2500/- per month to Rs.4500/-per month in favour of the wife. While passing the said order, learned Court below took into consideration the evidence on record, which demonstrated that the present petitioner had retired as Superintendent from the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat in the year 2013 and at the time of his superannuation, salary he was earning was approximately Rs.49,000/-. Learned Court below also took note of the fact that at the time of superannuation, the present petitioner had received GPF to the tune of Rs.18,67,344/- and considerable amount as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the present petitioner was also receiving pension to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. Learned Court below also took into consideration that the present respondent who was working as MDM mid day meal worker since 10.09.2008 was receiving a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the present petitioner was also receiving pension to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. Learned Court below also took into consideration that the present respondent who was working as MDM mid day meal worker since 10.09.2008 was receiving a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- per annum. It was on these bases that learned Court below enhanced the amount of compensation in favour of the present respondent from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4500/-. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioner has filed this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 5. A perusal of the records demonstrate that the factum of the present petitioner having superannuated from the post of Superintendent Civil Judge (Junior Division, Kandaghat in the year 2013 and his salary being around Rs.49,000/- at the time of his superannuation has come in the statement of CW-2 Vinod Sharma, who was serving as Naib Nazir in the same Court in which the present petitioner was serving. In fact the testimony of CW-2 demonstrates that at the time of superannuation of the present petitioner, he received an amount of Rs.18,67,344/- as GPF and reasonable amount as Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. This witness also deposed that the pension of the present petitioner was between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month. There was no cross- examination on behalf of the present petitioner of this witness on the said material depositions made by him. Records also demonstrated that Vinod Sharma, Superintendent Circle-2, Senior Secondary School, Kandaghat, District Solan, who entered the witness box as RW-1 has deposed that respondent-wife was engaged as MDM mid day meal worker since 10.09.2008 and her monthly income from the same was about Rs.10,000/- per month. 6. It is a matter of record that on 21.12.2005, the amount of maintenance which had initially been ordered by the learned Court below to be paid by the present petitioner to respondent-wife was enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.2500/-. Thereafter, from 2005 onwards, it was for the first time vide the order under challenge that the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4500/- after taking into consideration subsequent developments as well as escalation in the cost of day to day living. 7. Thereafter, from 2005 onwards, it was for the first time vide the order under challenge that the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4500/- after taking into consideration subsequent developments as well as escalation in the cost of day to day living. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that at the time of his superannuation, the present petitioner was drawing salary amounting to approximately Rs.49,000/- per month as well the amounts he received on superannuation, in my considered view, amount of Rs.4500/-, which has been ordered to be paid by him to the respondent-wife by learned trial Court below, cannot be said to be either high or unreasonable. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in the present days, it is not possible for an individual to survive and fulfill his/her domestic necessities of life with a meager amount of Rs.2500/- per month. 8. Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contemplates that on proof of a change in the circumstances of any person, Magistrate may make such alteration as it thinks fit in the allowance of maintenance or interim maintenance, as the case may be, vis-à-vis maintenance which the person was earlier receiving under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In these circumstances, it cannot even otherwise be said that the order of enhancement of maintenance amount which has been passed by the learned Court below is without jurisdiction. 9. Now taking into consideration the fact that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence but to check jurisdictional error etc. committed by the learned Court below, in my considered view, there is no infirmity or illegality with the order passed by the learned Court below vide which it has enhanced the amount of maintenance in favour of respondent-wife from Rs.2500/- to Rs.4500/- per month. Findings returned by the learned Court below are duly borne out from the records of the case and further learned Court below was having authority in law under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pass the order in issue. Therefore, it cannot be said that either there is perversity with the findings returned by the learned Court below or the order passed by the learned Court below is without jurisdiction. 10. Therefore, it cannot be said that either there is perversity with the findings returned by the learned Court below or the order passed by the learned Court below is without jurisdiction. 10. In view of my findings returned above, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.