AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
The judgment shall dispose of the present Criminal Revision preferred by the husband-cum-petitioner seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Tigiria in Crl. Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 enhancing the monthly maintenance of OP-wife to Rs.4,000/- from Rs.1,800/-w.e.f. date of filing of such petition in an application U/S.127 CrPC of the.
The factual matrix underpinning the controversy reveals that the marital status of the petitioner and the Opposite Party stands uncontroverted, but due to dissension & domestic discord with matrimonial estrangement, the wife originally initiated a proceeding for sustenance under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in C.P. No. 340 of 1996 for grant of maintenance in an application U/S.125 CrPC and the judgment therein was passed on 29.06.2002 dismissing such application for maintenance, however, the wife being aggrieved, challenged the same before this Court in a revision and this Court by a judgment passed therein set aside the judgment passed in C.P. No. 340 of 1996 and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to the wife for sustenance to alleviate her destitution and the wife was also granted therein the liberty to approach the concerned Court for enhancement of maintenance in future. The wife, thus, filed an application for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.7,000/- before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack which was registered vide C.P. No. 371 of 2012, but it was transferred on the point of jurisdiction to learned JMFC, Tigiria, who basing on compromise arrived at between the parties, directed the husband to pay maintenance at enhanced rate of Rs.1,800/- per month and thereafter, the wife once again invoked the remedial measure for enhancement of maintenance in an application U/S. 127 of CrPC in Crl. Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 before the learned JMFC, Tigiria, who passed the impugned order by directing the husband to pay enhanced maintenance @ Rs.4,000/-per month to the wife w.e.f. date of filing of such petition.
Heard Ms. Subhasmita Pattanaik, learned proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra, learned counsel for the OP in the matter and perused the record.
After having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of record, the petitioner herein in fact primarily seeks to invalidate the findings of the learned JMFC, Tigiria on the ground that the court acted in clear oblivion by passing the impugned order in ignorance of the compromise entered into by the parties in C.P. No. 371 of 2012, but it was admitted by the revision petitioner in his objection in Crl. Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022 that this Court while disposing CRLREV No. 306 of 2002 has granted liberty to the wife to approach the concerned Court for enhancement of maintenance in future and therefore, any argument attempting to use a past compromise as an absolute bar for seeking enhancement of maintenance in future is not only a ruse, but also legally unacceptable. Additionally, the ground as advanced to deny enhancement of monthly maintenance appears to be not only onerous, but also legally unsustainable since Section 23 of the Contract Act provides that any agreement, which is opposed to public policy is not enforceable in a Court of law and Section 127 of the CrPC remains an independent statutory mechanism designed specifically to re-calibrate allowances upon proof of a material change in circumstances of any person receiving maintenance U/S.125 of CrPC.
What is more important is that Sec.125 CrPC is a seminal piece of social and beneficial legislation which provides for a summary and speedy remedy by way of maintenance to a wife, who is unable to maintain herself and her children and the sole object of such provision is to prevent the legally dependents from vagrancy and destitution. It is undisputed that the order made U/S.125 of CrPC is tentative and is perennially subject to judicial variation or alteration U/S.127 of CrPC. It can be said so, that the compromise, if any effected between the parties was for grant of maintenance to the wife based on the contemporary cost of living index and financial variables then prevalent, however, such an arrangement cannot act as an eternal estoppel, nor can it divest a court of competent jurisdiction from adjusting the quantum when shifting economic realities demand judicial intervention and the Court is not debarred to alter the maintenance, if there appears change in circumstance.
The impugned order, however, discloses that the revision petitioner has submitted his pension bill summary authenticated by Subtreasury Office stating his total monthly pension to be Rs.36,294/- then, but the revision petitioner has in fact advanced claim that he has undergone cardiac surgery as well as spinal surgery in AMRI Hospital and is solely dependent upon his monthly pension and thereby, he cannot part from his pension more than what has been ordered earlier granting maintenance to the wife @ Rs.1,800/- per month, however, such assertion is without any basis and corroborative documents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP-wife has produced an information obtained under RTI Act that the revision petitioner is getting Rs.34,453/- + Rs.11,714/- (TI) as on 02.03.2023, but such document having not tendered in evidence, this Court ignores to take cognizance of it at this stage, since it is an information obtained under RTI Act and the revision petitioner has not got any opportunity to rebut such information obtained under RTI Act. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that the revision petitioner is a retired Constable and he is getting pension, but he has not filed the affidavit of his Assets and Liability as required under settled law, whereas the OP-wife has filed the same in Crl. Misc. Case No. 02 of 2022. According to the impugned order, the revision petitioner was receiving pension of Rs.35,294/- per month and even on that amount, it cannot be said that grant of Rs.4,000/- per month to the wife for her maintenance is excessive, since a wife is legally entitled to a standard of living that is reasonably commensurate with the socioeconomic status of her husband. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the revision petitioner is having any other dependents and thereby, the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Tigiria granting enhancement of maintenance to the wife from Rs.1,800/- to Rs.4,000/- per month is beyond questionable.
In the result, the Criminal Revision being unmerited, stands dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Tigiria is, hereby, confirmed.