Agam Lal vs State of U.P. and another

Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Case called out in the revised list. Learned Counsel for the parties are present.

The present revisions have been preferred by both the parties, i.e., husband and wife against the order of maintenance allowance dated 29.9.2007.

So far as the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 3722 of 2007, it is contended that the learned lower court has granted maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 3,000 per month. It is further contended that according to the pay slip of the year 2009, his salary has been enhanced. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that the learned Magistrate has passed the aforesaid order in the year 2007 and he is not in a position to consider that pay slip which he may get in the year 2009. Accordingly, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist does not seem to be sustainable and is liable to be rejected.

So far as the contention for allowing the maintenance allowance from the date of the order is concerned, the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for granting the maintenance allowance and as such, no interference is required by this Court.

So far as subsequent enhancement of the salary in the year 2009 is concerned, the revisionist is at liberty to move an application u/s 127, Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate concerned for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance.

So far as the Criminal Revision No. 3310 of 2007 is concerned, it is argued that the learned Magistrate has not given any reason for awarding the maintenance allowance because the wife is living separately without any reasonable reason.

In this connection, I have gone through the order passed by learned lower court. The learned lower court has held that the wife is living separately as a result of ill-treatment meted out to her. In the circumstances, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the revisionist in this case does not seem to be sustainable. The amount granted amounting to Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance allowance which is not excessive which may require any interference. Admittedly, the revisionist is a Railway Employee drawing handsome salary and he is able to provide Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance allowance to his wife. Keeping in this view of the matter, the revision appears to have no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Both the revisions mentioned above are, accordingly, dismissed.