IMPORTANT POINT
Retirement alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for reducing maintenance payments when the obligor has other income sources.

ORDER:

A husband is aggrieved of the trial Court’s failure to effect alteration of allowance of monthly maintenance. He impugns the order dated 23.12.2022 of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada in Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 in M.C.No.10 of 201 in this revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Respondent No.2 is the wife of the revision petitioner. Respondent No.1 is the State.

2. Proceeding sheet of this Court indicates that after 31.01.2023 there has been no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner on successive dates of hearing. Even when the matter was posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no change. However, since the revision needs disposal on merits, the matter was listed on 24.07.2024. On which date also, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and thus, except the grounds urged in the revision, there were no arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner.

3. For respondent No.2/the wife, Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, the learned counsel appeared and submitted arguments and cited legal authorities and urged the Court to dismiss the revision.

4. On considering the material on record and the submissions made before this Court, the point that falls for consideration is:

“Whether the change of circumstances are such requiring alteration in the monthly maintenance allowance and whether the impugned order suffers from illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference?

POINT:

5. Undisputed facts available from the record indicate the following aspects:

On 31.12.2019 the revision petitioner retired on superannuation as Assistant Commandant, 16th Battalion, APSP, Kakinada. Respondent No.2 is his legally wedded wife. They have two children during their wedded life. The eldest is the daughter who is stated to be 36 years old and the younger one is a son aged 26 years. His wife and children are living together while the revision petitioner is living separately. Though there are allegations that he had two other wives, we are not concerned with that in the present case. While he was in service, it was stated that he was earning a salary of Rs.90,000/- per month. The wife filed M.C.No.10 of 2010 and D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. After due enquiry, both the claims were answered in favour of the wife.

In terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C., Rs.10,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance was granted in M.C.No.10 of 2010 by the learned trial Court. As the wife was constrained to live in a rented house, the husband was directed to pay Rs.3,500/- towards her house rent as per the orders in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010. It seems that there has been substantial compliance with these orders on his part.

6. During subsequent periods, the wife sought enhancement of monthly maintenance and filed before the learned trial Court Crl.M.P.No.1921 of 2015. By an order dated 19.09.2016 her monthly maintenance allowance was enhanced and was fixed at Rs.15,000. Thereafter she filed Crl.M.P.No.1335 of 2019 and after due enquiry once again there was revision and this time monthly maintenance allowance was fixed at Rs.20,000/- by order dated 22.08.2019. After the said orders, the revision petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2019. By virtue of his retirement, it is stated, he was no longer entitled for the salary that he used to get while in service and his pension was fixed which is undoubtedly lower than the regular salary that he used to get. It is on that premise the husband filed Crl.M.P.No.68 of 2021 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking to modify the maintenance allowance and reduce it. He contended that he was receiving a pension of Rs.33,000/- per month. By the existing orders he has been paying Rs.20,000/- + Rs.3,500/- to the wife and therefore what remained with him is meager to maintain himself. He contended that he is growing in his age and there are growing medical needs. The wife filed her counter refuting those allegations and brought to the notice of t