- (1.) B. K. Sharma, J. This is a revision against the order dated 2- 9-1996 passed by Sri V. P. Gaur, Judge Family Court, Bareil ly, in Misc. Case No. 60 of 1996 Km, Suman Bi and Ors. v. Safiq Mohd, whereby he en hanced the maintenance allowance of Km. Suma Bi, Hafiz Mohd. and Mohd. Riya/. each from Rs. 150per month to Rs. 225 per month from the date of the order under Section 125,cr. P. C.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that under Section 125 (1), Cr. P. C. the Magistrate cannot award more than Rs. 500 in all for all the persons entitled to claim maintenance under this provision, taken together. This contention has been opposed by the learned A. G. A. who claims that there was nothing illegal in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The law on the subject is well set tled. There are a number of authorities on the subject. Relating to the old Criminal Procedure Code in the case of This Das v. Smi. Samju Dei Devi and Ors. , AIR 1933 Calcutta, 406. In this case, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held; "the words "in the whole" in Sec. 488, Criminal PC. , do not mean that Rs. 100 is the maximum limit for all the dependents together hut means for all kinds of maintenance for each dependent. They are intended to prevent the Court from exceeding the statutory limit in the case of any particular dependent and are not intended to restrict the powers of the Court to ordering a monthly allowance of Rs. 100 in resp ect of he maintenance of all the dependents. "
(3.) THEN a similar view was taken by a Division Bench authority of Madras High Court M. Bulteen v. R. C. Bulteen, AIR 1938 Madras 721. THEN there was a Full Bench authority of the Bombay High Court, Prabhavati v. Sumatilal, AIR 1954 Bom bay 546. In this authority, it was said by the Full Bench. "the suggestion that the juris diction of Magistrate is limited to allowing the one hundred rupees in respect of main tenance of the wife and the children jointly is, in our opinion, an impossible construc tion once it is accepted that the right of the wife and of each child is an independent right. Such a construction would lead to extremely anomalous results. If, for in stance, a wife applies for maintenance for herself and for her children and the Magistrate allows a maintenance of one hundred rupees, and if thereafter an il legitimate child were to come forward and to make an application for maintenance, the Magistrate having allowed an al lowance to her up to the maximum of his jurisdiction would be prevented from making any order in favour of the il legitimate child. Or, a man may have more than one wife and he may have children by each one of the wives. If the suggestion is that maintenance can be allowed in a com pendious application to be made and such maintenance cannot exceed one hundred rupees for all the persons applying for maintenance, then in a conceivable case a wife or a child may be deprived of main tenance altogether under the section. The intention of the legislature was clear, and the intention was to cast as obligation upon a person who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or children to carry out his obligation towards his wife or children. The obligation is separate and independent in relation to each one of the persons whom he is bound in law to maintain. It is futile to suggest that in using the expression "in the whole" the Legislature was limiting the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to passing an order in respect of all the persons whom he is bound to maintain allowing them maintenance not exceeding a sum of one hundred rupees".;