- (1.) IMPUGNED in this revision petition is an order dated 21.04.05 purporting to have been passed by Judicial Magistrate Anantnag u/s Cr.P.C, whereunder while allowing respondents maintenance petition, he directed petitioner to pay Rs. 1200/ - to each one of 1 to 5 and Rs. 1500/ - to respondent no. 6.
(2.) GROUNDS pleaded against the order are that the admitted income of petitioner who is government employee was Rs. 6911/ - and the maintenance allowance was much beyond his total income, and as such not reasonable; particularly because the respondents who are admittedly his children and wife are residing in his house at Dharhama Phalgam and enjoying the produce of his agricultural land and walnut trees. In reply the respondents counsel has argued that petitioners are completely down trodden and deserted deserving maintenance from petitioner and as such the impugned order is well founded in fact and law.
(3.) I have gone through the records and considered the matter. Perusal of subordinate file reveals that proceedings u/s 488 Cr.P.C. were instituted before trial Magistrate as far back as 22nd Oct. 2001 whereafter the first round concluded on 15.04.2002 with an ex -parte order against petitioner, directing hi to pay Rs. 500/ - per head to respondents 1 to 5 and Rs. 800/ - to respondent no. 6 per month as maintenance. The ex -parte order was however set aside on petitioners prayers, whereafter the matter was contested by parties afresh and the trial finally culminated in the plunged order; awarding Rs. 7500/ - as maintenance to respondents with aforesaid break up. Before proceeding further, it appears unavoidable to notice the surprising element of the matter that when proceeded against in ex -parte, the petitioner was burdened with the total amount of Rs. 3300/ - per month as maintenance payable to respondents, but after he contested the matter same got enhanced to Rs. 7500/ - i.e. almost double the earlier amount. This feature of the matter very clearly reflects the difference which the different approach of different Magistrates trying the same matter can make, and with glaring clarity indicates the extent to which the personal attitude of Magistrates effects the determination of matters pending before them. Assessing objectively, the gap should not have been so much, for the simple reason that judicial parameters of assessing a cause and prescribing the remedy should ordinarily not be so different. That it has been so suggests that individual perceptions sometimes superimpose themselves over objective appreciation by Magistrates. The case in hand reflects this aspect very seriously and projects the necessity of imparting continuous training to Judicial Magistrates/officers so that they are moulded in a uniform mould of judicial thinking and approach that would ultimately chisel their individual perceptions to reflect a visible uniformity of judicial perceptions and approach of individual judicial functionaries.;