Case Note & Summary
The case involves a husband, Sri G. Kalasegowda, and his wife, Smt. N.K. Nethravathi, who were married and later separated. The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, which was initially granted by the III Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore, at a certain amount. The husband challenged the quantum, and the wife sought enhancement. The LIX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, enhanced the maintenance, leading to two revision petitions: one by the husband (Crl.RP.No.795/2015) challenging the enhancement, and one by the wife (Crl.RP.No.1031/2015) seeking further enhancement. The High Court considered the scope of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., noting that the revisional court cannot reassess evidence unless the finding is perverse. The court examined the income of both parties, noting that the wife was employed and earning, and the husband had agricultural income. The court held that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to equalize incomes. The High Court found that the lower appellate court had exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the maintenance without proper justification. Consequently, the High Court allowed the husband's revision, setting aside the enhanced maintenance and restoring the original order, and dismissed the wife's cross-revision.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Quantum of Maintenance - The court held that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, not to equalize incomes. The quantum must be based on the actual income of the husband and the needs of the wife, considering her own income. The revision court cannot reassess evidence unless the finding is perverse. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Revision - The revisional court's power is limited to correcting errors of law or perverse findings. It cannot act as an appellate court and reassess evidence. The High Court set aside the enhanced maintenance as the lower appellate court had exceeded its jurisdiction. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of maintenance granted to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was excessive and whether the revision court could interfere with the quantum of maintenance.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the husband's revision petition (Crl.RP.No.795/2015) and set aside the enhanced maintenance granted by the lower appellate court, restoring the original order of the Magistrate. The wife's cross-revision (Crl.RP.No.1031/2015) was dismissed.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy and destitution
- not to equalize incomes
- quantum must be based on actual income and needs
- revision court cannot reassess evidence unless perverse
- wife's income from employment must be considered
- husband's liability is limited to his capacity to pay.
