Amar Singh vs Brahmi Devi

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 03.07.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in Petition No.17/22/19, titled Brahmi Devi Versus Amar Singh. In terms of the order, the application filed by the respondent herein, under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the maintenance allowance has been allowed by the learned Court below by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.1,500/-, which was so fixed in the year 2010, to Rs.3,500/- per month.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse as the jump from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,500/- per month cannot be said to be reasonable. He further submitted that the petitioner is 78 years old and has no source of income except social pension. He submitted that in these circumstances, it is difficult for him to comply with the order passed by the learned Court below, for the reason that besides the respondent, he also has to look after his two sons who are unemployed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the amount of Rs.1,500/- was fixed as monthly maintenance in the proceedings which were initiated by the respondent-wife against the petitioner herein under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code as far back as in the year 2010. He further submitted that only after more than 15 years, this amount stands enhanced from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,500/- and that too, in an application which was preferred in the year 2019. He submitted that the wife has no source of income. He also submitted that no one is looking after the wife and in these circumstances, it was extremely difficult for her to maintain herself on the meager amount of compensation of Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, he submitted that amount of Rs.3,500/- ordered by the learned Court below as enhancement of the maintenance allowance cannot be said to be an exaggerated amount. Learned Counsel further submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioner despite having a legally wedded wife, contracted another marriage and has children from the second marriage who are major and the plea of the petitioner that he has no source of income etc., is totally incorrect as his sons have landed property in their name.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we have also gone through the order under challenge as well as other documents which have been placed on record.

It is not in dispute that the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.1,500/- was awarded in favor of the present respondent in an application filed by her vide order dated 19.07.2010. Thereafter, in the year 2019, she filed an application under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the said amount and in terms of impugned order dated 03.07.2025, this amount has been enhanced to Rs.3,500/-.

The Court has been informed that the petitioner is getting Rs.2,000/- as old-age pension/social pension and the respondent is getting Rs.1,500/- as old-age pension/social pension.

It is also evident from the impugned order that there are land entries in the name of son of the petitioner from the second marriage and there is no land recorded in the name of his first wife, i.e. the respondent herein.

A perusal of the record of the case demonstrates that in the course of cross-examination of the respondent-wife, a suggestion was put to her that the husband was residing at home for the last 20 years and in response thereto the wife said that this was incorrect and she further stated that the husband used to drive vehicle and he owned three-four vehicles. She subsequently went on to depose that one of the vehicles was being driven by the petitioner and for the remaining vehicles he had deployed drivers. Now surprisingly, no question or suggestion was put to her in the further cross-examination that this part of her deposition as made in the Court was false or incorrect. This impliedly amounts to the acceptance of the factum of certain trucks being owned by the husband.

Be that as it may, as observed hereinabove, an amount of Rs.1,500/- as monthly maintenance was fixed in favour of the wife by the learned Court below as far back as in the year 2010. The application filed by her under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the same filed in the year 2019, was decided in the year 2025 and in terms thereof, this amount stands enhanced to Rs.3,500/- per month.

We are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as monthly maintenance to be paid to the wife by the husband, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be an exorbitant amount. Simply because the husband is an old man, this does not absolve him from his duty to look after his wife and an amount of Rs.3,500/-, again cannot be said to be an excessive compensation awarded for the monthly upkeep of the wife by the learned Court below.

If we see from the other perspective, the enhancement which has been given by the Court is of Rs.2000/-, i.e. from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.3,500/- and that too. after about 15 years as from the date when the amount of Rs.1,500/- was fixed earlier by the Court. The inflation in the interregnum cannot be overlooked by anyone especially the Court.

We, in fact, are not sure as to how this lady would be able to maintain herself on a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,500/- per month plus Rs.1,500/- in view of her old age, which she is getting as social pension, but in light of the fact that there is no challenge to the amount so fixed by the learned Court below by her, we are not making any observation qua the same.

Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as we do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge and as we are of the considered view that the enhancement which has been granted by the Court is a reasonable enhancement, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.