Arvind vs The State of Maharashtra

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner. Notice to respondent No.1/State only. Learned A.P.P. dispenses notice for 2 respondent No.1. Counsel for petitioner and A.P.P. heard finally.

In this matter, the wife was approved maintenance of Rs.500/- per month and the daughter was approved maintenance of Rs.250/- per month in Misc. Criminal Case No.25/2001. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 later filed M.C.A. No.29/2010 and for them maintenance was enhanced to Rs.750/- and Rs.500/- per month respectively. The petitioner- husband had filed Misc. Application No.62/2009 u/s 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1975 (Cr.P.C. for short), claiming that there was change of circumstance as the wife had started working as Anganwadi Sevika. He claimed that, the wife was getting Rs. 1500/- per month and so, the maintenance approved should be cancelled. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kinwat, by judgment and order dated 22.2.2013, rejected the application after hearing the parties. The Magistrate found that the working by wife as Anganwadi Sevika does not constitute change in circumstance. He found that, the father was bound to maintain the minor daughter. The trial Court found that, the job was not as a permanent employee and that the wife was working as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of work and remuneration.

The matter was carried in Criminal Revision No.27/2013 and the Sessions Judge took notice of the fact that the 3 maintenance granted was only of Rs.750/- per month and Rs. 500/- per month respectively. Point for consideration was raised whether by way of change of circumstance the wife and daughter were having sufficient income. The Sessions Judge recorded finding in negative. The evidence brought was discussed and the Sessions Judge found that the wife was getting honorarium of Rs.1500/- per month. It was recorded that, the daughter was yet unmarried and that the father cannot ask for cancellation of maintenance unless he establishes that daughter has sufficient means of her own and can maintain herself independently. It was recorded that, what the respondent wife was getting was honorarium and not salary. Rs.1500/-, which the respondent wife was getting was not handsome income. The Sessions Judge thus rejected the revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that u/s 127 there is definitely change of circumstance and so the maintenance in favour of respondents should have been cancelled. Learned counsel is referring to recently issued certificate regarding employment of the respondent- wife to say that the wife is getting Rs.4150/- per month. This document was not before subordinate Courts and has not been proved.

I find that, Rs.750/- per month to respondent No.2 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No.3 payable by petitioner are small amounts compared to the cost of living at present. The wife and daughters are not expected to live in penury. Only because the wife struggled to get herself some work does not mean that the husband can be absolved of his liability. The change of circumstance for present matter has to be such that considering the same it could be said that the wife is now having sufficient means to take care of herself. The daughter is in 12th Standard. If the wife has managed to get herself work so as to support herself and daughter with some additional income, the same is not such amount that she could be said to be self sufficient, looking to present cost of living. Even Rs.4000/- - Rs. 5000/- in present times, for two persons, specially when the daughter is taking education, cannot be said to be enough. Petitioner should rather be happy that his liability has been fixed on rather a small amount.

I do not find that there is anything illegal in the views taken by the courts below to interfere in writ jurisdiction. There is no substance in the writ petition and the same is rejected.