AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard counsel for both the parties.
Present Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2005 has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the order passed by the Family Judge, Roorkee dated 12th September, 2005 by which Rs. 1,000/- has been granted towards maintenance allowance of the revisionist Smt. Kiran Sharma from the date of the application.
Briefly stated, according to the case of the revisionist, the revisionist and the opposite party No. 2 got married on 10th December, 1982. However, on 10th October, 1986, the revisionist was ousted from her matrimonial house and started residing along with her father. An application was filed by the revisionist u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was decided in her favour on 9th December, 1996 and the opposite party No. 2 was directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 300/- per month to the revisionist. It was stated that the opposite party No. 2 is getting a sum of Rs. I2,000/- per month towards salary and as such earlier she has made a demand for Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Thereafter, an application was filed by the revisionist for enhancement of the maintenance allowance u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On the application filed u/s 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Judge was of the opinion that maintenance of a sum of Rs. 300/- per month is hardly sufficient to cater the requirement of the revisionist and as such the amount of Rs. 300/- per month was enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month.
Revisionist-Kirti Sharma has filed criminal revision for further enhancement of maintenance, whereas Criminal Revision No. 226 of 2005 has been filed on the ground that the amount of maintenance is too excessive.
After taking into consideration the entire evidence on the record the Family Judge has recorded a finding that the opposite party No. 2 is getting a sum of Rs. I2,000/- per month and there is no intention of the opposite party No. 2 to keep her with him and at present when there is exorbitant rise in the price maintenance of Rs. 300/- is hardly sufficient to meet out the expenses and as such the amount was rightly enhanced from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month.
In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. AIR 1978 SC the Apex Court has observed as under:
This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statues calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social Junctions to fulfill The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy fro the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause-the cause of the derelicts.
I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 12th September, 2005 passed by the Family Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar and as such both the revisions lacks merit and are dismissed.