Kalawati vs Bishan Lal @ Ganga Bishan

G.S. Chahal, J.

Smt. Kalawati has preferred this revision against the order dated 14391 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which revision brought by the respondent was allowed by hun, and maintenance of Rs. 400/ p.m. granted by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, was reducted to Rs. 200/ p.m.

The petitioner is, the divorced wife of the respondent. She had been allowed maintenance at Rs. 130/ p.m. She moved an application under, section. 127, Cr.P.C. for its enhancement on the ground that the prices of the necessaries, of life had gone high and she had no other means of income to maintain herself, while the respondent was the owner of sufficient agricultural property. This application was contested on the basis that she was no longer the wife and was getting maintenance at Rs. 130/ p.m. with effect from 1386, while earlier to that, she was receiving Rs. 100/. She had the source of income by sewing clothes and keeping buffaloes. The respondent claimed that he had no agricultural land with him. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application and increased the maintenance to Rs. 400/ p. m. This order was under challenge before the Addl. Sessions Judge, who, as indicated above, has reduced that amount to Rs. 200/ per month.

The maintenance was fixed on 1386 at the rate of Rs. 130/ p.m. The" statement of the petitioner that since there has been an increase in the prices of necessaries of life, can hardly be doubted. A copy of the Ex. P1 shows the respondent to be the owner of land, measuring 194 Kanals and 8 Marlas, out of which area of 70 Kanals and 8 Marlas of land is canal irrigated. This evidence has not been rebutted by the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent, however claims that he was no longer the owner of that land, as vide mutation No. 1843, proved as judicial evidence, the respondent has got mutated the land in the name of Munshi Ram etc. It appears that the respondent has suffered a decree against himself in order to avoid the liability of maintenance of his former wife.

The fact that the exwife as included in the term wife in Section 125, Cr.P.C. has not been disputed. The petitioner is, thus, not only entitled to maintenance at its initial stage, but is also entitled to claim the enhancement with the changed circumstances. There has been an increase in the price index of the necessaries of life and also increase in the income from agricultural land. In this situation, there has been a change of circumstances and the petitioner was entitled to a reasonable amount of maintenance. There was hardly any justification for the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to have interfered with the order passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in granting enhancement of the maintenance to the petitioner. The maintenance has to be substantial which may enable the wife to make her both ends meet. I hereby accept the revision and after setting aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge restore the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, enhancing the rate of maintenance to Rs. 400/ p.m. This enhancement will be effective from the date of the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate i.e. 15th November, 1990.

JUDGMENT accordingly.