Honble RAFIQ, J.— This revision petition has been filed at the instance of the husband-petitioner against the order dated 15.2.2008 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Alwar allowed the appeal of the respondent-wife and enhanced the maintenance awarded to the respondent-wife by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Alwar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 19.4.2006 awarded to the respondent wife a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from the date of the application dated 4.1.2001. Learned Additional District Judge under his order dated 15.2.2008 enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 1000/- per month.

(2). I have heard Shri J.R. Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the amount of maintenance directed to be paid under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. could not be enhanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the scope of revision. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar vs. Mst. Shanta Bai : RLR 2002(3) 228 and argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge in the scope of revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. had no authority to enhance the amount of maintenance. Such a prayer could be made by the wife only to the Magistrate who passed the first order of maintenance under the provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of the application dated 4.1.2001 and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in law in directing payment of maintenance from the date of the application and Additional Sessions Judge also committed the same error. It was argued that learned ACJM in exercise of his power conferred on him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can direct payment of maintenance only from the date of the order and if it decides to grant such maintenance from the date of the application, it is required to record specific reasons for its doing so. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge may be quashed and set-aside.

(4). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully studied the impugned judgment as also the cited judgment.

(5). From perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge it appears that the argument that it being raised by the petitioner as to the competence of his Court was also raised before him and it was rejected on the premise that Section 127 Cr.P.C. was applicable only in a situation where there was some change in the cir-

cumstances of the wife and she could on that basis claim alteration in the quantum of maintenance. Careful study of the judgment reported in Raj Kumar supra reveals that the aforesaid judgment was passed relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Balraj vs. Smt. Mallamma : 1984 Cr.L.J. 1170. This Court in para 9 of the judgment in Raj Kumar supra held as under:-

"9. A reading of Section 126 Cr.P.C. would show that it provides for procedure and the jurisdiction of the Court where an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. could be filed. Section 127 Cr.P.C. which is for alteration in the amount is completely different and for this Section 126, Cr.P.C. has no application. Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. provides a proof of change in the circumstances of any person, receiving under Section 125 a monthly allowance, or ordered under the same Section to pay a monthly allowance to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may be, the Magistrate may make such alteration in the allowance as he things fit. The words "the Magistrate" would mean the Magistrate who had passed the first order of maintenance because Court is strengthened in this interpretation by the fact that Section 128 Cr.P.C. which is the section for enforcement o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document