Sou. Leelavati and Others vs Nivrutti and Others

Vishnu Sahai, J.—Respondent No. 1 Nivrutti is the husband of the applicant No. 1 Sou. Leelavati and father of applicant No. 2 Hemlata. It appears that the applicant No. 1 filed an application for maintenance u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code on 26.7.1983 before JMFC, Bhor. The learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 40/- p.m. and Rs. 20/- p.m. as maintenance to the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Subsequently, the applicants moved an application u/s 127, Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of the maintenance allowance before the JMFC, Bhor. In the said application, it was mentioned that since the salary of the respondent was Rs. 1,100/- p.m. he be directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 160/- p.m. to the applicant Sou. Leelavati and Rs. 150/- p.m. to applicant Hemlata. The learned JMFC, Bhor vide his order dated 16.2.1989, accepted the prayer of the applicants and increased the maintenance allowance in the manner prayed by them.

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 1 preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 83 of 1990 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who was pleased to partly allow it inasmuch as he directed that the respondent No. 1 instead of paying Rs. 160/- p.m. and Rs. 150/- p.m. to the applicant Sou. Leelavati and Kum. Hemlata respectively would pay them Rs. 125/- p.m. and Rs. 100/- p.m. respectively.

Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants Sou. Leelavati and Kum. Hemlata have approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 336 of 1991. When the matter was called out in the first part of the day, learned Counsels for the applicants, were not present. Again, when the matter was called out after lunch, they are still not present. Since the revision pertains to the year 1991, I am not inclined to adjourn it, and propose disposing of the same with the assistance of Mr. Singhal, Counsel for the respondent No. 2. As mentioned earlier, respondent No. 1 though served, has not engaged any Counsel. I have gone through the impugned order and find no error in the same. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed in para 12 of the impugned judgment that the salary of the respondent No. 1 is Rs. 1,066/- p.m. and from this, he has to maintain himself, his parents, his second wife and children. Bearing that in mind, he marginally modified the maintenance order passed in favour of the applicants. In spite of that, the respondent No. 1 is paying Rs. 310/- p.m. in all to the applicants. Considering his total salary and his liabilities, the said modification cannot be said to be incorrect and improper.

In the result, there is no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.