NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 232 of 2016

1. Neeraj Kumar Mahto S/o Shri Ram Shankar Mahto, aged about 32

years, R/o RH No.1(Wrongly mentioned in order as RH No.6) Lunkad

Avenue, Viman Nagar, Pune (M.H.).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Abha Kastwar W/o Shri Neeraj Kumar, aged about 29 years, D/o Shri

Yogendra Kastwar, R/o H.No.408, 4^th Floor, Golchha Enclave, Amlidih,

Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001.

---- Respondent

For Petitioner – Ms. Aparna Diwan, Advocate.

For Respondent – None, not noticed.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

Order on Board

15/03/2016

1.

Heard the matter on motion.

2.

Facts in brief for appreciation of the instant criminal revision are that

before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, C.G. Civil Suit

No.284/12 (Smt. Abha Kastwar V. Neeraj Kumar Mahto) is pending under

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'). In

the said suit order for interim maintenance was passed. On behalf of the

petitioner applications under Section 127(1), Section 340 and Section 91 of the

Code had been filed. The Court below vide order dated 21-12-2015 disposed

of the said interim applications and held that the application under Section 340

of the Code and the original civil suit under Section 125 of the Code as they

belong two different nature, it would not be appropriate to try both the matters

jointly, hence, directed that the application filed under Section 340 of the Code

be registered separately and independent proceeding may be initiated. The

trial Court also allowed the application filed under Section 91 of the Code and

directed in para 21 of the order dated 21-12-2015 that the said application is

allowed and memo be issued to the concerned for presentation of the relevant

documents. For the application filed under Section 127(1) of the Code, the

Court below at para 15 held that after appreciation of the entire material it has

to be held that whether the applicant is entitled or not for the maintenance

amount on the basis of her economic competency. Hence, the said application

was dismissed. After the said order dated 21-12-2015 the petitioner had filed

the instant criminal revision.

3.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they are aggrieved with the

rejection of the application filed under Section 127(1) of the Code only and

against the said order they have filed the instant criminal revision and it is

prayed that the revision may be allowed and the impugned part of the order be

quashed.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order

and the documents annexed along with the matter.

5.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since there is change of

circumstances, Section 127(1) of the Code is applicable. The appreciation of

the Court below at para 15 of the impugned order is not proper, hence, it

requires interference.

6.

On due consideration and also for relevance for the instant criminal

revision, provision of sub-section 1 of Section 127 of the Code is required to

be perused 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.

From perusal of the impugned order, the material in relation with the

interim application under Section 127(1) of the Code and the facts regarding

issuance of interim maintenance, it goes to show that the petitioner had not

challenged the order for issuance of interim maintenance. With this, the order

of the interim maintenance attains finality for the moment. The