M.K.Basu, J. - (1.) This revisional application under sections 482 Cr.PC is directed against the order dated 7.1.2002 passed by the learned SDJM, Alipur in Case No. M-244/01 pending before that Court under section 125 CrPC rejecting a prayer for interim maintenance of the petitioner and interim award of Rs. 1500/- per month on account of the child till the hearing and disposal of the main petition. The case of the petitioner is as follows. She was married to the opposite party No. 2 Promit Sen according to Hindu rites. On 18th June, 1998 soon after the marriage she was subjected to severe mental and physical torture by the opposite party No. 2 and her in-laws. The opposite party No. 2 was whimsical, selfish and irresponsible and he used to abuse the petitioner and to pick up quarrel with her every now and then on baseless and false accusations. She used to be constantly intimidated, threatened and assaulted by the opposite party No. 2 on a number of occasions on the ground of his dissatisfaction in respect of articles given by her parents during their marriage. Ultimately she was sent by the opposite party No. 2 and her in-laws to her parental home where she has been residing till now and the expenses of her and her child's maintenance are being borne by her father. The opposite party No. 2 neither care to bear any such expense nor paid any visit to her father's house nor take any information about them. She has no independent source of income. Under such circumstances she has filed the petition under section 125 Cr.PC in question claiming maintenance from the opposite party No. 2 on account of herself as well as the child who was born out of this wedlock. The petitioner also filed a criminal case against the opposite party No. 2 and the other in-laws under sections 498A and 406 IPC which is in the Court of the learned Magistrate being Jadavpur P.S. Case No. 190/2000. The Police after investigation has submitted a charge sheet in that case against the opposite party No. 2 and the other in-laws and that case is still pending in the Court of SDJM, Alipur for trial. The opposite party No. 2 is a professional singer and is the owner of an Export oriented Concern Style as M/s. Super Exports having its office at Mission Road, Bangalore-56. He is also a major share-holder of M/s. Super Plastic wherefrom he earns more than Rs. 17 lakhs per month. The petitioner has 10% share in a Travel Agency Firm under this Style M/s. Capri International which is owned by her mother but the form of business of that Firm is absolutely uncallable and since July 2001 she did not receive any remuneration from that firm in any manner. She has prayed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month for herself and Rs. 10,000/- per month for the child.
(2.) The learned SDJM after hearing both sides and perusing a document filed by both the parties passed the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance and directing payment of Rs. 1500/- per month by way of interim maintenance for the child. Being aggrieved by this order the petitioner has preferred this revisional application challenging the same as erroneous and unjustified being passed on the basis of vague surmises and conjectures.
(3.) The contention of Mr. Basu, the learned advocate for the petitioner has been that it is not understood wherefrom the learned Magistrate could draw the conclusion that the petitioner was not a destitute lady and need not require any maintenance. Mr. Basu has criticised the impugned order as improper and perverse and his findings that the petitioner had some income of her own as totally unwarranted. According to Mr. Basu, the learned SDJM has not given any reason for coming to such finding and passing the impugned order and being a non-speaking order it has been rendered liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he refers to the decision reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 wherein it has been held that assigning of reason in an order passed by an Administrative Authority or a judicial forum is of utmost importance and necessity. This is so because giving of reason is the sine qua non of a judicial order and is a consequence of the principle of natural justice. Mr. Basu then submits that the provisions of the Cr.PC having been amended by the Act No. 50 of 2001, a Magistrate is no longer required to keep the amount of maintenance confined within the limit of Rs. 1500/- and in view of such Amending Act, the limit is only reasonableness. According to him, considering the standard of living of the parties and the rising price index in respect of the essential articles which are being necessaries the learned Magistrate ought to have awarded a much higher amount by way of maintenance for the child. So far as the wife is concerned, according to Mr. Basu, she having no independent source of income is entitled to get a reasonable amount of maintenance from the opposite party No. 2 whose income has already been mentioned above. Mr. Basu refers to a number of decisions of the Apex Court to bring home his point that the husband is under a statutory duty to provide maintenance to his married wife and under the shastric mandate also such an obligation has been cast upon the husband irrespective of whether the wife has got any stridhan properties or even any earnings. Mr. Basu's further contention is that in view of the Central Amendment of section 125 of the Cr.PC the limit of award of maintenance under the said section need not be confined to Rs. 1500/- and the learned Magistrate is now at liberty to award a higher amount if found justified or necessary. The question, however, has been raised as to whether the said amendment has got any retrospective effect, that is to say, whether the pending proceedings should be governed by the same, inasmuch as, it came into force with effect from 24th September, 2001 when this proceeding had already been pending. Mr. Basu has strenuously argued that such a beneficial legislation will have retrospective effect and such pending proceedings will come under its purview. In this connection he refers to the decision reported in (1) AIR 1941 PC 38, (2) AIR 1961 SC 647, (3) AIR 1955 SC 661, (4) AIR 1978 SC 741 & 1807, (5) AIR 1991 SC 1256 and (6) 2000 CCrLr (Cal) 179.;