N. K. BATABYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional case arises out of an application under Section 482 read with S. 401 of the Cr. P. C. , 1973 and is directed against an order dated 23-2-93 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, Howrah in Misc. Case No. 10/83 in a proceeding under S. 127 of the Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 was solemnised according to Hindu rites and Customs on 20-4-1976. After the marriage the parties lived together and the relationship between the parties became strained and the wife-opposite party deserted the husband. Attempts at compromise failed. In 1980 the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 116/80 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Howrah for restitution of conjugal fights but he withdrew that suit in January, 1983. The wife then filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. in the Court of the learned S. D. J. M. , Howrah praying for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/ per month. The learned Magistrate by order dated 31-5-1986 directed the husband-petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month to the wife-opposite party from the date of filing of the application. The husband-petitioner paid the maintenance as per the above order. In December, 1991, the wife-opposite party filed an application under S. 127 of the Cr. P. C. for a direction to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs; 500/-per month alleging inter alia, that the market price of essential commodities had become high and she was unable to maintain herself with the paltry amount. The husband filed objection thereto. Upon hearing the parties the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah by the impugned order dated 23/02/1993 was pleased to enhance the maintenance to the extent of Rs. 450/- per month from the date of the application under Sec. 127 of the Cr. P. C. and directed the husband-petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs. 450/- along with the arrear maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month till the arrears sum stood liquidated.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the husband has come before this court.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enhance the maintenance amount under Section 127 of the Cr. P. C.retrospectively from the date of the application under the said Section. The learned Lawyer for the wife-opposite party contested the application vigorously. No one has appeared on behalf of the State-opposite party.

( 5 ) THE only point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

( 6 ) MR. Subir Banerjee, learned Advocate for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Magistrate can only order increased payment from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate has relied upon the principles laid down in J. H. Amroon v. Mrs. R. Sassoon, AIR 1949. Cal 584: (50 Cri LJ 1006 ). In that case there was a revision from an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta raising maintenance from Rs, 12/- to Rs. 50/- per month with effect from the month of September, 1948 while the application for alteration of the allowance was made on 31/08/1948. In that case, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order of retrospective payment was illegal. A learned Single Judge of his Court after considering the decisions of other High Courts of India on the point, as there was no decision on the point of our High Court, came to the conclusion that the Magistrate had no power to order the increased allowance to be paid with effect from the date of application but only from the date of the order increasing the allowance.

( 7 ) THE learned Judge considered Hiralal Valavdas v. Bai Amba, AIR 1926 Bom 419: (27 Cri LJ 940) and Mt. Lilawati v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1935 Lab 24 : (37 Cri LJ 68 ). In the Bombay case, a Division Bench

Click Here to Read the rest of this document