Blank, J. - (1.) THIS Revision arises from an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta raising maintenance from Bs. Vi to Es. 60 per month with effect from the month of September 1948, the application for alteration of the allowance having been made on 31et August 1948. It appears that the petitioner had an illegitimate child and that in the proceedings in the Presidency Magistrate's Court in 1935 he was ordered to pay Rs. 10 per month for the maintenance of the child as from the date of fling of that case. The allowance was afterwards raised to Bs. 12 per month, it is said, by the petitioner as an act of grace. The opposite priority, the mother of the child, applied for increase of the amount of maintenance to Bs. 60 per month on the ground that she was not in a position to maintain the child with the amount granted, The child is said to be a be y now at school.
(2.) THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate went into the allegations of the parties as to the circumstances of the petitioner and held that considering that the be y was being educated, the school fees amounting to Rs. 18 -8 per month, and considering the rise in the cost of living daring the last few years, Rs. GO "is just sufficient for the bare needs of the bay." He also considered the evidence as to the properties belonging to the petitioner and found that the petitioner's wife and the children by his wife were not dependant on the petitioner and have not been for the last 3 or 4 years. He also held that there had been a change in the circumstances be to from the point of view of the child's requirements and the capacity to pay of the opposite -party and fixed the amount of maintenance at Bs. 60 per month with effect from the month of September 1948 as already stated. The date of the order IS 8th November 1948. In argument here Mr. S, C. Talukdar for the petitioner raised the question of the means of the petitioner but did not pursue it at all strenuously. On the findings o Mae learned Chief Presidency Magistrate it is clear that the amount of maintenance at us. so per month should not be interfered with by this Court.
(3.) MR . Talukdar however raised the point that the order of "retrospective payment at the fixed rate" is illegal. By "retrospective" is meant an order taking effect from a date prior to the order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. He states that there is no decision on the point in this Court and neither am I aware of any. The authorities elsewhere are scanty. The annotated edition of Criminal P. C, quotes the case of Parvatham v. Mutha, a weir 650 as an authority for the proposition that an order of alteration of allowance under this section cannot take effect retrospectively. The Magistrate has no power to reduce the rate of maintenance which has already accrued due; his order will take effect In respect of the allowance that will fall due after the date of the order. The arrears which have (alien due will be enforced at the rate originally fixed. On referring to the original volume it appears that the decision was that of the then Chief Justice sitting singly, the complainant was Parvatham and the defendant Mutha Pillai, apparently wife and husband respectively. The order is quoted as it stands: The Magistrate had no power to reduce the rate of maintenance which had accrued due. He should have enforced payment of the arrears at the rate originally awarded, and the reduction should have been limited to payments accruing due after the date of the order. But as no application has been made by the wife for the amendment of the order, the Court considers it inexpedient to interfere.;