Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1294 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal S/o Kashi Ram v. Smt. pushpa W/o Bhanwar Lal

2025-05-13

FARJAND ALI

body2025
Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.02.2014 passed by II Judge, Family Court, Rajsamand, whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. and enhanced the monthly maintenance amount from Rs. 275/- to Rs. 4,000/- in Criminal Misc. Case No. 394/2012 titled Smt. Pushpa vs. Bhanwar Lal. 2. Breifly stated facts of the case are that, the petitioner and the non-petitioner are husband and wife, their marriage having been solemnized approximately 45 years ago. Due to matrimonial differences, the parties began living separately, and the non-petitioner (wife) started residing apart from the petitioner since the year 1976. Subsequently, the non- petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, wherein maintenance was granted in her favour at the rate of Rs. 275/- per month by order dated 14.12.1987, passed under the then unamended provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.01.1990, the parties arrived at a compromise, which was submitted by the non- petitioner herself before the concerned court, with a request to cancel the recovery proceedings in respect of the maintenance amount. As per the said compromise, the non- petitioner executed a document dissolving the marriage and accepted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- in full and final settlement towards future maintenance. Additionally, her son, Dilip, who was then residing with her, was also paid Rs. 3,50,000/- to start a business. These terms were further reduced into writing on 25.07.2004. The petitioner claims that out of the said amount, the non-petitioner deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- as a fixed deposit in the Post Office, Rani Road, Udaipur, bearing Account No. 110843, which yielded a monthly interest of Rs. 680/-. Apart from this, the petitioner also constructed a house for the non-petitioner at Jaishree Colony, Udaipur, at a cost of Rs. 15,00,000/- for her residential use, which also comprised certain shops generating substantial rental income. Thereafter, in the year 2005, despite the receipt of the said amounts and property, the non-petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which was contested by the petitioner. 15,00,000/- for her residential use, which also comprised certain shops generating substantial rental income. Thereafter, in the year 2005, despite the receipt of the said amounts and property, the non-petitioner filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which was contested by the petitioner. After recording evidence, the court below dismissed the said petition on 11.12.2008, holding that in view of the previous compromise and the financial support extended to the non-petitioner, no case for enhancement of maintenance was made out. Simultaneously, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the original maintenance order was also dismissed by the same order. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the non-petitioner once again filed a second application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Rajsamand, allegedly concealing the aforesaid facts. The Family Court, after recording evidence of both sides, allowed the said application and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 275/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month by the impugned order dated 04.02.2014. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Upon careful appreciation of the record and submissions advanced by both parties, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the well-reasoned order dated 04.02.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara, whereby the maintenance awarded to the legally wedded wife, Smt. Pushpa Devi, was enhanced from Rs. 275/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The relationship of marriage between the parties stands admitted and undisputed. Despite residing separately, the respondent-wife has shown sufficient and plausible reasons for her separate residence. It is settled law that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself, is a continuing one under Section 125 CrPC and does not extinguish merely due to past estrangement or lapse of time. 5. While it is true that an earlier application under Section 127 CrPC was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.12.2008, such rejection cannot forever debar a legally wedded wife from seeking enhancement of maintenance, especially in light of substantial change in circumstances, as statutorily envisaged in Section 127 CrPC. The statute expressly contemplates variation in the amount of maintenance when circumstances materially change. The statute expressly contemplates variation in the amount of maintenance when circumstances materially change. In the present case, documentary evidence including communication from the Treasury Officer, Udaipur, clearly reflects that the non-applicant-husband is now in receipt of a substantial pension of Rs. 24,906/- per month, as against Rs. 7,250/- at the time of the earlier order. Further, credible and largely uncontroverted testimony from the wife, along with the record, indicates that the husband has also been gainfully employed post-retirement at Ramkishan Teachers' Training College, drawing additional remuneration of approximately Rs. 19,000/- per month. 6. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner-husband that he had already paid a lump sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- to the wife and her son and had allegedly transferred a valuable immovable property in her favour, lacks cogency and evidentiary support. The wife has categorically denied executing any such receipt or settlement deed. The document purporting to be a relinquishment or acknowledgment lacks registration, and its authenticity is rightly viewed with suspicion by the trial court, especially in light of discrepancies in the signatures and names. In absence of a registered sale deed or credible proof of income derived by the wife from the alleged property, it cannot be presumed that she is the beneficiary of any rental income therefrom. 7. Moreover, the trial court rightly rejected the contention that the previous order of 2008 precludes fresh adjudication, particularly when the current financial landscape of the husband demonstrates a manifold increase in income. The statutory scheme under Section 127 CrPC clearly permits successive applications where material changes are demonstrated — and inflation, increased cost of living, and rise in the husband's earning capacity are all factors recognized by courts while considering such prayer. 8. The Court also notes that even if it were to consider the meagre bank interest income claimed by the petitioner- husband to be accruing to the wife, the cumulative income of approximately Rs. 900–1,000/- per month is manifestly insufficient to sustain even a subsistence-level standard of living in the present economic climate. The quantum of Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Magistrate, although modest in today's terms, is a just and fair enhancement and is based on sound legal principles. 9. It is also pertinent to note that even in the earlier order dated 11.12.2008, the learned Magistrate did not hold that the wife was disentitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The quantum of Rs. 4,000/- awarded by the Magistrate, although modest in today's terms, is a just and fair enhancement and is based on sound legal principles. 9. It is also pertinent to note that even in the earlier order dated 11.12.2008, the learned Magistrate did not hold that the wife was disentitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. On the contrary, the court upheld her legal right to receive maintenance by continuing the earlier award of Rs. 275/- per month. Thus, her status as a legally wedded wife entitled to maintenance has never been in question. The present enhancement application under Section 127 CrPC does not arise from a claim to an entirely new right, but from a continuing entitlement rooted in statute, now necessitating revision due to a demonstrable and substantial change in circumstances, both in terms of the husband's financial capacity and the cost of living. 10. Finally, the economic reality of persistent inflation and rising living costs cannot be overlooked. Judicial notice must be taken of the fact that the value of Rs. 275/- — originally awarded in 1987 — has been severely eroded over the decades due to inflation, rendering it wholly inadequate. The enhanced amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month is not only proportionate to the husband’s increased financial capacity but also reflective of present-day subsistence requirements of an aged, non-earning spouse. 11. In view of the above discussion, no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity can be found in the impugned order dated 04.02.2014. The revision petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The stay petition is disposed of.