Kailash vs Vidhyabai and Another

R.D. Shukla, J.—This order shall dispose of the Criminal Revision No. 69/92 and Misc. Cri. Case No. 1395/92. Both these petitions have

been filed against the Judgment and order dated 22-2-92 of Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhar, Passed in Criminal Revision No. 146/91, whereby

the learned Sessions Judge has maintained the order of maintenance allowance granted to Mata (daughter) who is N.A. 2 in revision No. 69/92

and applicant No. 2 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1395/92, but reversed the order of refusal of maintenance to Vidhyabai, N.A. 1 in Cri. Revision No.

69/92 and petitioner in M. Cr. C. No. 1395/92 and further directed payment of maintenance of Rs. 200/- p.m. to Vidhyabai.

Admitted facts of the case are that Kailash is working as police Head Constable in Police Station Dhar. Vidhyabai is the wife of Kailash and

Mamta is daughter out of their wedlock. Vidhyabai and Mamta had filed an application for grant of maintenance allowance. Learned J.M.F.C.

Dhar vide order dated 28-8-91 passed in Cri. Case No 33/90 granted maintenance allowance to Mamta to the tune of Rs. 300/- p.m. but refused

maintenance allowance to Vidhyabai (wife) holding it to be that she herself has got capacity to earn, and is able to maintain herself. The revision

against the said order was filed by Vidhyabai for grant of maintenance allowance and Mamta for enhancement. Learned Sessions Judge by order

referred to above has maintained the maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- to Mamta and further directed payment of maintenance allowance in

favour of Vidhyabai (wife) @ Rs. 200/- p.m. This revision petition (Cri. Revision No 69/92) has been filed by the applicant husband against the

grant of maintenance allowance the said order for enhancement of maintenance allowance. Misc. Cri. Case No. 1395/92 has also been filed

allowance against the said order for enhancement of maintenance allowance.

Admittedly Mamta is a minor daughter and is living with the mother. Kailash is Head Constable. He is also possessing some agriculture land. He

is bound to maintain his daughter. Rs. 300/- p.m. has been granted in her favour and therefore it cannot be said that the maintenance is in any way

unjust or improper.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Mamta has submitted that with the growing age she may require some more money for her

maintenance and education. That would be a future contingency and when it arises she is free to file application for enhancement of maintenance

allowance, but at this stage it can not be said that the maintenance allowance granted is inadequate and therefore that calls for no interference by

this Court. So far as maintenance in favour of Vidhyabai (wife) is concerned, learned Counsel for the husband has submitted that she has got

capacity of earning as she is running a sewing machine and tailoring some cloths. It is an established principle of law that a person is bound to

maintain his wife if she is unable to maintain herself. In cases of desertion or abandonment a wife may seek maintenance allowance from the Court,

but so long as that has not been granted she will definitely try to earn livelihood for her sustenance. It appears that Vidhyabai was forced to work

as she was not being maintained by her husband. It also appears that learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration this fact also and that is

why lesser amount has been granted in her favour. This is also not out of place to mention here that while granting maintenance allowance if it is

found that a person seeking such allowance is having some income & that is not sufficient, the person who is liable to maintain can be directed to

compensate to the extent of insufficiency. I think same has been done in this case also.

In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the order of learned Sessions Judge calls for no interference neither by way of Revision (Cr. Rev. No.

69/92) nor by way of M. Cr. C. No. 1395/92. As a result both the petitions are dismissed.