The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the principle that maintenance claimed under one provision was subject to adjustment under the other provisions.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC assails the order dated 23.8.2008 of ASJ passed in criminal revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the M.M. dated 8.3.2007.

2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and the mother of the respondents No. 2 & 3. She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC against them seeking maintenance. In the said case, the learned M.M. declined the request of the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance vide his order dated 8.3.2007. The said order was taken in revision by the petitioner in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, who vide the impugned order dated 23.8.2008 granted interim maintenance to the petitioner against her husband (respondent No. 1) at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the ASJ in the present petition and seeks enhancement of compensation against her husband (respondent No.1) as also compensation against her sons i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3.

3. It is noted that all the grounds which have been taken in the present petition under Section 482 CrPC are the same which were taken by the petitioner in the revision petition before the ASJ. Practically, the present petition though, filed under Section 482 CrPC is nothing, but a second revision petition against the order of the M.M. Though, the second revision petition was not maintainable, but having regard to the fact that no findings have been recorded by the ASJ qua the respondents No. 2 & 3 i.e. the sons of the petitioner and respondent No.1, I deem it a case warranting exercise of power of this court under Section 482 CrPC.

4. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are residing in the same house. This house is three storied comprising of ground, first and second floors. It is undisputed that both the parties are cooking and eating separately. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 is meeting all the household expenses such as water, electricity charges, maintenance of house, payment of house tax etc. It is also undisputed that respondent No.1 is a person retired from Air India and also that the petitioner owns a house at Mumbai. It is also admitted case that under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner was granted Rs. 3500/- per month maintenance from the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 25.11.2009 of ADJ. In CM (M) No. 357/2010, this court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 4500/- per month and undisputedly, the same is being paid by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner. It is further undisputed that both the respondents No. 2 & 3, who are the sons of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 are not residing with them in the said house. Respondent No. 2 Prem Prakash is residing at Australia, while respondent No.3 Anil is living sometimes with his sister at Mumbai and sometimes in rented premises.

5. Having noted above the undisputed and admitted facts, the petitioner’s case as set out is that the maintenance of Rs. 4500/- per month is not sufficient and need to be enhanced. She has alleged her husband to be getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as pension and Rs. 15,000/- from the banks as interest on deposits and further, a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month from insurance. With regard to her son Prem Prakash (respondent No.2), who is residing at Australia, she alleged his income to be more than Rs. 2 lakhs per month. Regarding her son Anil (respondent No.3), she alleges him to be working at Mumbai and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month.

6. On the other hand, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner has F.D. to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs from which, she was getting fixed interest @ Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is alleged that she owns a property at Mumbai, which is lying vacant and can be let out by her. The respondent No. 1 denied that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month as interest from bank. It is pleaded that he was getting only Rs. 5000/- pe