Advocates:
['SURYAWANSHI KAMLAKAR J', 'SANAP R D', '', 'FOR R/SOLE']

1 Crim.W.P. 1177.2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1177 OF 2011

Shaikh Rabbani S/o Shaikh Razak

V/s

Sow. Farjana Begum W/o Shaikh Rabbani

......................

Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. R.D.Sanap, Advocate for resp. No.2.

.......................

CORAM : ABHAY M.THIPSAY, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 5, 2013

.......................

ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard.

2.

' Rule '.

3.

By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

4.

The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. He is

aggrieved by the order dated 07/09/2010 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Patoda, Dist. Beed, enhancing the amount of

maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondent to ` 2,500/-

[ Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month from ` 1,500/- [

Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month. The petitioner

2 Crim.W.P. 1177.2011

had approached the Court of Sessions by filing an application for revision

of the said order, but, even the revision came to be dismissed. Under

these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking

its constitutional jurisdiction.

5.

Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner

raised only one contention. According to him, the respondent was not

entitled to seek any enhancement of the maintenance amount, as the

amount had been fixed pursuant to the compromise arrived at by and

between the parties in the year 2000 itself. He submitted that the terms

of the compromise were filed in the Court of the Magistrate and accepted

by both the parties. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the fact

that the question of maintenance had been fully and finally settled by

and between the parties, the respondent was not entitled to seek

enhancement of the amount of maintenance, that was agreed upon as

per the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

According to him, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into

consideration either by the learned Magistrate or by the learned Sessions

Judge.

6.

I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter.

3 Crim.W.P. 1177.2011

7.

The document containing the written terms of compromise

arrived at between the parties is annexed to the petition as and by way

of Exh. A. It does appear that as per clause No. 3 of the document

[ Exh. A ], the petitioner had agreed to pay an amount of ` 1,500/-

[ Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only ] per month as and by way of

maintenance to the respondent herein. Clause No. 3 says that the said

amount of maintenance would be paid between the first date and 9th

date of every month.

8.

Indeed, it does appear that the parties had accordingly

agreed.

9.

The question is, however, whether this clause or this

agreement, reflected in the said clause, would prevent the petitioner

from claiming enhanced amount of maintenance for ever and irrespective

of other relevant factors.

10.

It would be necessary to see how the learned Magistrate and

the learned Sessions Judge have dealt with this aspect of the matter. In

para No. 7 of his order, the learned Magistrate observed that, he was

taking judicial notice of the inflation and the fact that the cost of living has

gone up considerably.

4 Crim.W.P. 1177.2011

11.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that, the

salary of the petitioner must have been increased considerably due to the

im