R.D.Khare - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri P. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
(2.) THE present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2009, passed on amendment application No. 108 filed by opposite party No. 2 in pending Maintenance Case No. 13 of 2005 under Section 125, Cr. P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, whereby said amendment application has been allowed and opposite party No. 2 has been permitted to amend the amount of interim maintenance claimed at the rate of Rs. 5,000 in place of Rs. 1,000 per month. THE amendment was directed to be carried out within three days and the revisionist was permitted to file his objection to the said amendment within ten days. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the private opposite parties No. 2 to 4 had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month on 15.5.2000. The revisionist filed his written statement to the said application. Vide order dated 15.10.2005, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar granted interim maintenance of Rs. 400 each to the opposite parties No. 3 and 4. It is further contended that on 18.6.2009 to prolong the said proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. an application for amendment was filed by the opposite party No. 2 for amending the amount of interim maintenance claimed from Rs. 1,000 as mentioned in the application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. to Rs. 5,000 per month, which has been allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment to be allowed in the proceedings under Section 125, Cr. P.C. therefore, order impugned is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) SRI P. K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 has argued that the Judge, Family Court/Magistrate concerned has ample power under the provisions of Section 125, Cr. P.C. to grant monthly maintenance allowance to the wife, children, father or mother on such monthly rate as the Magistrate/Court deems fit, therefore, nomenclature of the application filed would not matter as the application for amendment of the amount of interim maintenance claimed was filed on account of changed circumstances of increase in price structure and on the basis of which it was urged that interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 was highly inadequate to meet needs of opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 specially their education expenses. It is further argued that nomenclature of the application would not be of much relevance and the Magistrate has only directed that the amount so claimed, i.e., Rs. 1,000 may be amended to Rs. 5,000 per month but no direction for its payment has yet been issued, therefore, it is contended that filing of present revision by the revisionist is misconceived. It is next argued that the provisions of Sections 125, 126, 127, 128, Cr. P.C. are beneficiary in nature in order to ensure that wives, children and parent, who are unable to maintain themselves, may be maintained properly and they are not neglected by such person against whom maintenance is being claimed and who are otherwise legally liable to maintain them. Thus, the aforesaid provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial legislation intended to secure the interest of the persons mentioned therein so as to prevent the vagaries of destitution and to ensure that they live a descent and honourable life. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to Section 127, Cr. P.C. which pertains to alteration of allowance and it has been argued that the Magistrate has power to alter the amount of maintenance in the changed circumstances, which was granted initially under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and can direct for payment of such maintenance or interim maintenance, which Magistrate may make by such alteration. It is next contended that the application of amendment is not very happily worded and intent of moving such application was to enhance the claimed compensation due to changed circumstances of increase of cost of living during the past years.;