Order on Board

23-9-2021

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants against the order dated 31-10-2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar, in Misc. Judicial Case No. 187/2019 whereby application filed by the applicants under Section 127(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') has been dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 19-3-2007 passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 82/2006, monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 600/- to each applicant was granted. On 11-1-2018, applicants filed an application under Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C. for modification and enhancement of maintenance amount which was dismissed by learned Court below mentioning that the applicants have not proved change of circumstance. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that original order had been passed on 19-3-2007, 10 years thereafter, the applicants filed the application for enhancement of maintenance amount. At the time of passing of earlier order, age of applicant No. 2 Pranav Singh Thakur was 5 years, now his age is 15 years. At that time, salary of non-applicant was about Rs. 7 – 8 thousands, but now he is getting monthly salary Rs. 31,133/-. Applicant Smt. Ranu Chouhan has clearly stated in her statement that their son - applicant No. 2 Pranav Singh Thakur is studying in Class 8th in Sai Aryavart Public School and in his education, maintenance etc, about Rs. 70,000/- per year is spent. Looking to these facts, Rs. 1,200/- per month maintenance amount is not sufficient for maintaining both the applicants, because in last 15 years, inflation has risen to an extreme heights. In these circumstances, grant of only Rs. 1,200/- per month as maintenance, that too, for two persons is on very lower side. Therefore, learned trial Court ought to have enhanced maintenance amount upto Rs. 5,000/- for each applicants which has not been done. Therefore, the revision may be allowed and relief, as prayed, may be granted by this Court.

4. Earlier, non-applicant/husband was represented by a counsel in this case, later on, neither non-applicant appeared in person nor represented by any counsel.

5. In reply filed by the non-applicant/husband before Court below, he has stated that the applicant/wife is well educated lady and also does job, therefore, she is able to maintain herself and her son also. His 65 years old mother, who is suffering from various diseases also, is dependent upon the non-applicant and huge amount is spent for her treatment. He has also stated in his reply that the applicant/wife has remarried in the year 2008 with one Harish Kesharwani, R/o. Bhatapara, and even she has changed name of applicant No. 2 from Pranav Singh to Sameer Kesharwani in his school record. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the non-applicant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record of Court below as well as original file of Misc. Judicial Case no. 82/2006, and other documents available with the file.

7. A perusal of record of Court below shows that original order was passed in MJC No. 82/2006 on 19-3-2007, at that time, age of applicant No. 2 Pranav Singh was 5 years. At that time, non-

applicant was working as peon in Govt. Middle School, Bhatapara and as per statement of Accountant Rupesh Raypurkar, in November, 2006, gross salary of non-applicant was Rs. 4,973/- per month and net salary was Rs. 4,533/-. Now as per deposition of Smt. Ranu Chouhan recorded on 26-9-2019, age of the applicant No. 2 Pranav Singh Thakur is 14 years and he is studying in Class 8th, non-applicant is working as Clerk and he is getting monthly salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. By efflux of time of 10 years, cost of living and cost of other items of livelihood has also increased remarkably. These facts itself show change of circumstances of both the parties. In spite of that, learned Court below without considering the facts of the case properly, has held arbitrarily that the applicant ha