Gurnam Singh, J. - (1.) MST . Chanchal Kumari was allowed maintenance allowance for herself and her minor son under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, to be paid by her husband Ved Parkash. She was allowed Rs. 50/ - per mensem and so she was allowed Rs. 25/ -per mensem vide order dated 10th December 1962, on 16th January 1973 Chanchal Kumari made an application under Section 489, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, for the enhancement of maintenance granted to her and her son, on the ground that the prices, of all the necessary commodities of daily use, have increased. The trial Magistrate dismissed his application. She filed revision petition, which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who allowed the same and enhanced the maintenance allowance of Chanchal Kumari from Rs. 50/ - to Rs 65/ - per mensem and that of Pawan Kumar from Rs. 25/ - to Rs 35/ - per mensem. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also ordered that the enhanced amount of maintenance allowance, be paid to Chanchal Kumari and Pawan Kumar, from the date of application. Ved Parkash has filed this revision petition.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that according to the findings given by both the Courts below, the income of the husband has not increased and as such the order increasing maintenance allowance was not proper. According to the Petitioner husband, he is earning Rs. 200/ - a month. He is dealing in the sale of dupattas as a hawker. It cannot be believed that his income has not increased since 1962. Anyhow, even if, his income is taken as Rs 200/ - per month, he is able to pay Rs. 100/ - to the Respondents of this petition. Keeping in view the increase in the prices of the essential commodities of daily use, there appears to be no defect in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and, therefore, the increase in the maintenance allowance of the Respondents is upheld. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the increase could be effected from the date of order and not from the date of application. He relied upon Dr. T. K. Thayumanuvar v. Asanambal Ammal, A.I.R. 1958 Myc 190. and Bhagat Singh v. Smt. Parkash Kaur, 1972 P.L R. 952., since the Respondents have not shown any special circumstances for getting the increased maintenance from the date of application, the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, directing the present Petitioner to pay the increased maintenance allowance from 16th January 1973, is set aside and it is ordered that they would be entitled to get the increased maintenance allowance from the date of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, i.e , 22nd July 1975.
(3.) WITH this aforesaid modification in the order passed by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, this revision petition is dismissed.;