- (1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 21.6.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Misc. Case no. 266 of 2008 under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2.) IN the background of this revision the fact in gist is that the petitioner was married to O.P. No. 2 on 27.7.81 in accordance with Special Marriage Act. They had a very good relationship initially and out of the said wedlock two children were born. The O.P. No. 2 took loan and constructed a house. The O.P. No. 2 asked the petitioner to bring Rs. 35000/- from her father. The petitioner further paid it. Thereafter, the O.P. started torturing the petitioner for no reasons. The O.P. No. 2 stayed away from house at night and then the petitioner came to learn that he is having a relationship with one Anita Jana, wife of Sri Rabindra Nath Jana. The O.P. No. 2 pressurised the petitioner to accept the relationship of the petitioner with the said lady. He also pressurized the petitioner to sale the house which was in the name of the petitioner. Local Panchayet was informed and Salish held but he did not pay any heed to their decisions. The O.P. No. 2 did not look after his children and also failed to maintain the petitioner. The O.P. No. 2 is a bank employee and is having ancestral property and he was earning Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 6500/- p.m. He fraudulently took the signature of the petitioner on a blank paper as well as other blank pages. The petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The O.P. No. 2 tortured the petitioner both physically and mentally. So, the petitioner approached the Pradhan on 7.5.94. A Salish was called on 15.4.94 and 10.7.94. The O.P. undertook to maintain his family but he did not. The petitioner lodged a complaint before the Police under Section 498A of the IPC. The O.P. No. 2 is having an extramarital relationship with the said Anita Jana and he was caught redhanded by the local people. The O.P. No. 2 contested the said application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and denied all material allegations. He subsequently did not appear in the proceedings. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk by order dated 2.11.95 was pleased to pass an interim order maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- p.m. to the petitioner and her children. Thereafter, on 12.7.96, the learned court below passed an ex parte order directing the O.P. No. 2 to pay Rs. 1000/- p.m. to the petitioner and Rs. 750 each to the children. The O.P. No. 2 failed to pay such amount as per order of the learned court below. So, Misc. Exn. Case No. 21 of 1996 and 12 of 1996 were filed in 2003, the petitioner filed another petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned ACJM, Tamluk praying for enhancement on the ground that the children are studying in higher classes and market price has increased. The O.P. No. 2 has been promoted to the post of senior employee of U.B.I. and earns Rs. 12000/- p.m. The O.P. No. 2 contested application by filing written objection and denying all the materials contained therein. By the impugned order dated 4.7.2011, the learned Magistrate increased the amount to the tune of Rs. 1500/- p.m. to the petitioner and Rs. 1000/- p.m. to the children. In 2003, the petitioner filed another application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for increasing of monthly allowance. On 22.2.2005, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk on hearing both the parties, directed the O.P. No. 2 to pay Rs. 1750/- to the petitioner and Rs. 1500/- to the children. The O.P. challenged the order dated 22.2.2005 in the revision application no. 1114 of 2005 before the Hon 'ble High Court. On 9.9.2008, His Lordship was pleased to set aside the part of the order of granting maintenance to the son who, in the meantime, became a major and directed the O.P. No. 2 to continue with paying of maintenance of Rs. 1750/- to the petitioner and Rs. 1500/- to the daughter. Similarly, the petitioner filed other applications under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2008 and on hearing of both sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk passed an order dated 21.6.2011 directing the O.P. to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2250/- p.m. to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- to the daughter from the date of passing of the order. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing such order, the learned court below erred in observing that in 2005, the O.P. No. 2 admitted in his crossexamination that his gross salary was Rs. 20000/- and so. The order should have taken effect from the date of filing the application instead of date of passing of the order. The O.P. No. 2 filed two applications for divorce bearing no. 283/07 and 59/05 and 34/05. Both were dismissed for not taking any steps. Heard the learned counsel for both sides at length. Now the point for consideration is if the impugned order calls for any interference or not. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount granted in the impugned order is too meager to meet the requirements and the order for payment of maintenance should take effect from the date of filing of the application. On the other hand, none contested on behalf of the State. But the O.P. No. 2 contended that though he was not in agreement with the amount passed by the learned court below yet, he did not find any irregularity in the order. I have considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the impugned order and other materials on record. It is admitted position that the petitioner was married to O.P. No. 2 and they got two issues, one son and one daughter, the son being major and the daughter also being major but unmarried. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the maintenance amount lastly granted to the extent of Rs. 2250/- p.m. to the petitioner and @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. to her daughter who is pursuing his B.Sc.(H) degree is too meager to meet the expenses on many counts and as such the maintenance amount should be increased to Rs. 10000/- for the petitioner and Rs. 5000/- for her daughter p.m. and effect of payment of maintenance should be given from the date of filing of the petition. It appears from the record that the O.P. No. 2 is a bank employee and at the relevant point of time he had a monthly salary of Rs. 29000/- plus. The O.P. No. 2 took the plea that he had to maintain his parents and other dependent members and he took huge loan etc. and he gets only around Rs. 7000/- p.m. as net pay. But all of his contentions were negated by the learned trial court while disposing of the petition under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lastly by the impugned order. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 did not counter the factum of prosecuting the status in higher classes by the daughter of the petitioner. It further appears after passing of the order on 21.6.2011, the prices of essential commodities shot up considerably. The O.P. No. 2 has also admitted in 2011 prices of essential commodities have increased.
(3.) THUS, no infirmity is noticed in the impugned order. But the justice will be met if the maintenance amount for the daughter is increased from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- p.m. in view of the educational expenses of the daughter of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the O.P. is not at all paying anything. No execution case is reported to be pending. So, I do not find any reasonable ground to saddle the O.P. No. 2 with the burden of paying arrear maintenance from the date of filing of the application. Accordingly, the criminal revision succeeds in part. The O.P. is directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 2250/- p.m. to the petitioner and @ Rs. 3000/- p.m. to her daughter. THUS, the revision stands disposed of. I pass no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied according to rules.;