The court emphasized the social purpose of maintenance provisions and the implied power of the Magistrate to pass interim orders for maintenance pending disposal of the proceeding.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order, dated 22.12.2004, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, Tripura West, in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004, whereby the present petitioner, as the second party in the proceeding, has been directed to pay, in all, Rs. 3,000 to the opposite party herein and their minor female child as maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1,500 each per month and the authorities concerned have been directed to deduct every month the said maintenance allowance from the salary of the petitioner-second party and remit the same by money order to the first party-opposite party herein.

2. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S. Saha, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. The order, dated 22.12.2004, aforementioned has been challenged on the ground that the same is in violation of provisions of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and also contrary to the provisions contained in the proviso (ia) to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the CPC.

4. For the purpose of appreciating the grievances raised by the second party-petitioner, the material facts, which have led to file the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows :

By an order passed, on 31.8.1993, in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala, had allowed maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month in favour of the first party and another sum of Rs. 150 per month in favour of the female child of the parties concerned. By making an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004 aforementioned, the first party, later on, sought for enhancement of the said maintenance allowance on the ground, inter alia, that the amounts of maintenance, which had been fixed for her and their minor child, were too meagre, and they were entitled to enhancement of the maintenance allowance, for, the second party, who is a driver in MT Pool of the Police Department, had, upon revision of his pay, started receiving Rs. 10,000 per month as his salary. On perusal of the material on record, the learned Judge, Family Court, noticed that the second party had been drawing more than ten thousand rupees as pay and allowances per month from the Government and that the maintenance allowance, which had been fixed in the year 1999, needed to be enhanced. It was on these considerations that the second party was directed to pay, in all, Rs. 3,000 as maintenance allowance per month.

5. From the materials placed before this Court too, I notice that the second party-petitioner receives, after deducting requisite taxes, more than Rs. 10,000 as his pay and allowances. Situated, thus, it is clear that the quantum of maintenance allowance, which the second party has been directed to pay, is less than 30% of the total pay and allowance of the first party. Though, strictly speaking, the proviso (ia) to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 C.P.C relates to attachment of salary in execution of decree for maintenance in a civil suit, yet even if the spirit of Section 60 is adhered to, it is clear that the maintenance allowance directed to be paid by the impugned order is in conformity with the spirit of proviso (ia) to Sub-section (1) of Section 60 CPC. This apart, Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which has been referred to by the petitioner, lays down as to what a judgment of the Family Court shall contain. Though an order made under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is not really a judgment, yet what Section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, requires is that the judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In the case in hand, the impugned order clearly reflects the case of the parties, the question, which was posed for determination, and assigns the reasons as to why the direction for enhancement of the maintenance allowanc