1. By way of present revision application, filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the applicant-wife has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 16th January, 2007 passed by the learned Addition 5th Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nadiad below Exhibit 21 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.318 of 2005 and also prayed to enhance the maintenance amount of the applicant-wife under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month.
2. The short facts of the case is that the applicant is wife. She got married with the present respondent No.2 and out of their wedlock, they have four children; two son and two daughter. Thereafter there were several disputes between the applicant-wife and the respondent No.2-husband and therefore, the respondent No.2-husband had driven out applicant- wife from her matrimonial house. Therefore, the applicant-wife preferred Maintenance Application before Gandhinagar Court, in which the learned Judge vide order dated 31st March, 2003 has awarded Rs.500/- as maintenance amount. Thereafter, the applicant-wife has preferred another application for enhancement of maintenance amount before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in which the learned Magistrate vide order dated 19th October, 2004 enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.1,000/-. But due to rise in price of almost all the goods and due to inflation, the said amount of Rs.1,000/- is not sufficient and therefore, again the applicant-wife had preferred application for enhancement of maintenance amount being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.318 of 2005. In the said application, the learned 5th Additional Senior Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad vide the impugned order dated 16th January, 2007 enhanced the amount of maintenance to Rs.1,350/-.
3. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 16th January, 2007, the applicant-wife has preferred the present revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Heard Ms.Sneha Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Y.V. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.
5. Ms.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant-wife, states that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.1,350/- per month as maintenance amount, which is not just and proper. She has contended that in these hard days, the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate towards maintenance is too meager amount and it is very difficult for the applicant-wife to maintain herself in these hard days in Rs.1,350/- per month. She has further contended that the respondent No.2-husband is earning handsome amount and he has no other liability as the respondent No.2-husband is living separately from his parents.
6. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-husband, states that the respondent No.2 is ready to enhance the amount of maintenance upto some extent, but not as prayed for by the applicant-wife. He has contended that it is also difficult for the respondent No.2 to maintain himself in these hard days after paying amount of maintenance to the applicant-wife. Mr.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-husband, states that respondent No.2 is ready to part with Rs.2,800/- per month towards maintenance amount to the applicant-wife instead of Rs.1,350/- per month. Ms.Sneha Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant-wife has agreed to the aforesaid proposal made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-husband.
7. In view of the aforesaid proposal given by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and since the same has been accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant-wife, the present application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 16th January, 2007 passed by the learned Additional 5th Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad below Exhibit 21 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.318 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.2-husband is directed to pay Rs.2,800/- per month to the applicant instead of Rs.1,350/- per month towards maintenance amount from January, 2012. The respondent No.2-husband is directed to deposit the amount of arrears of revised maintenance with the Court concerned within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the present order. The respondent No.2- husband is also directed to deposit the pre-revised amount of maintenance with the Court concerned, if any outstanding, within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the present order. The applicant-wife is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited by the respondent No.2-husband and is also permitted to withdraw the amount of maintenance as and when deposited by the respondent No.2-husband.
It is open for the applicant-wife to file a fresh application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as and when the need to that effect so arises. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(Z. K. Saiyed, J) Anup