Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 637 (ALL)

MOHD. YASEEN v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-03-16

ANIRUDDHA SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : Aniruddha Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record. 2. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed against judgment and order dated 9.11.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 27 of 2017 (Smt. Nafeesa Khatoon vs. Mohd. Yaseen) whereby application of opposite party No. 2 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance has been allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance to her. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted the revisionist is a retired Government servant and is getting Rs.19,000/- per month (before 7th pay commission). He has been retired from the post of Guard in Railways. He is suffering from heart and sugar and on his treatment he spends Rs.10,000/- per month and he also paid electricity bill of Rs.3000/- to 3500/-. The impugned order is illegal and against fact & law. 4. In the application before lower Court, opposite party No.2 has prayed that amount of maintenance be enhanced from Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month. She stated in her application that she is unable to deposit house tax, water tax and electricity bill etc. Opposite party filed objection 8-A dated 9.11.2017 before the lower Court stating that he is 80 years old, he is ailing person and Rs.10,000/- is being spent in food etc. and there is no source of income other than pension. 5. Application of wife/opposite party no. 2 for maintenance was allowed as Rs.3000/- per month vide order 19.11.2015 which was enhanced to Rs.8000/- per month vide impugned order dated 9.11.2017 because two years have passed. Considering inflation, revision in pension after 7th Pay Commission and on the basis of admitted fact that when husband spends Rs.10,000/- per month on his food etc., it is very natural that wife who is 78 years old, may also require equal amount for spending on her food etc. Hence how it can be said that amount of Rs.8,000/- per month is excess. Moreover, medicines are also necessary expenses. Both husband and wife are of same age and their requirements are almost same. 6. In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Hence how it can be said that amount of Rs.8,000/- per month is excess. Moreover, medicines are also necessary expenses. Both husband and wife are of same age and their requirements are almost same. 6. In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, ( AIR 1978 SC 1807 ) Krishna Iyer, J dealing with interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed (at Para 9) thus:- "This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts." 7. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice on this point. It is also pertinent to mention here that intention of legislature also shows that this provision is measure of social justice because initially amount of maintenance was fixed to Rs.500/- per month. Subsequently, it was enhanced upto Rs.5000/- per month and later on these words have been deleted and present position is that there is no financial limit for maintenance under this section. 8. Moreover, in the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. 9. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed. 10. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.