ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAJ BEER SINGH
MUNIRAM – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRLR/178/2022
MAINTENANCE - ENHANCEMENT - CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a retired government employee, challenged the order of the family court enhancing the maintenance amount granted to his first wife from Rs.200/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month under Section 127 CrPC. The revisionist argued that the enhancement was excessive and arbitrary, and that he had remarried and had the responsibility of maintaining his second wife and children.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the enhancement of maintenance was justified considering the increase in the cost of living, the revisionist's income of Rs.30,000/- per month, and the fact that the first wife had no source of income.
Issues: Whether the enhancement of maintenance from Rs.200/- per month to Rs.7,000/- per month was excessive and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 127(1) CrPC, which provides for alteration in maintenance allowance upon proof of a change in circumstances. The court held that the increase in the cost of living and the revisionist's increased income constituted a change in circumstances justifying the enhancement of maintenance.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the order of the family court enhancing the maintenance amount was upheld.
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 178 of 2022
Revisionist :- Muniram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Pavan
Kishore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order
dated 02.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Principal
Judge/ Family Court, Sant Kabir Nagar in Misc. Case
No.10/11/2018, 'Sona Devi Vs. Muniram', under Section 127
CrPC, whereby the amount of maintenance granted to opposite
party No.2 has been enhanced from Rs.200/- per month to
7,000/- per month.
3. Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the impugned
order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.
Earlier, the opposite party no.2, who is wife of revisionist, was
granted maintenance @ Rs.200/- per month by order dated
27.01.1994, passed by the learned Second Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Basti and after that the revisionist has been
regularly paying the said amount of maintenance. Later on the
opposite party No. 2 filed an application under section 127
CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, which has been allowed
by the court below vide impugned order dated 02.12.2021,
whereby the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from
Rs.200 to 7,000/- per month. It is submitted that the revisionist
has already been retired from government service and that he is
merely getting fund of Rs.20,000/- per month. The revisionist
has responsibility to maintain his second wife and children, who
are studying. Further, the said enhanced maintenance has been
granted from the date of application, which is 25.01.2018. After
enhancement of maintenance amount, the revisionist has
already paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 03.11.2022. Referring
to the facts of the matter, it is submitted that the enhancement of
amount of maintenance is quite excessive and arbitrary and the
court below committed error by granting the enhanced amount
from the date of application.
4. Learned AGA has opposed.
5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
6. Before proceeding further it would be apt to quote provisions
of clause (1) of section 127, which reads as under:
"…127. Alteration in allowance.— (1) On proof of a change in the circumstances of any
person, receiving, under Section 125 a monthly allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance, or ordered under the same section to pay a monthly allowance for the
maintenance, or interim maintenance, to his wife, child, father or mother, as the case may
be, the Magistrate may make such alteration, as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.
7. It is clear from a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section
127 Cr.P.C. that these provisions provide for increase or
decrease of maintenance granted under Section 125, consequent
upon any change in the circumstances of the parties concerned
at the time of filing of application for alteration/modification of
the original order of maintenance. For that purpose it must be
shown by the party concerned that there has been a change in
the circumstances of either the husband or of the wife. Thus, the
provisions of Section 127 (1) CrPC provide for increase or
reduce the allowance if there is a "change in the circumstances
of the parties at the time of the application for alteration of the
original order of maintenance. The amount of maintenance
once fixed under section 125(1) Cr.P.C. is not something which
can be taken to be a blanket liability for all times to come. It is
subject to variation on both sides. It can be increased or
decreased as per the altered circumstances. The objective is to
ensure that fair share according to changed income or changed
circumstances is granted to the wife. It may be stated that the
term ''change in circumstance
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.