Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, husband, challenged the common judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur, in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No.22 of 2012 dated 5.9.2014, arising out of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anjangaon-Surji, in Misc. Criminal Application No.81 of 2009 dated 12.12.2011. The learned Magistrate had partly allowed the wife's application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,500 per month. The wife filed a revision seeking further enhancement, and the husband also filed a revision challenging the enhancement. The revisional court allowed the wife's revision and enhanced maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per month, while dismissing the husband's revision. The husband then filed the present writ petition. The High Court observed that the revisional court did not apply its mind to the material on record and did not consider the husband's income. The court noted that the revisional court merely stated that the husband was a teacher and could earn more, without any basis. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the revisional court for fresh consideration, directing the parties to appear on 7.8.2017.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Enhancement under Section 127 CrPC - The court held that the revisional court erred in enhancing maintenance without considering the husband's income and without proper application of mind. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-10)
B) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Application of Mind - The court emphasized that while deciding an application under Section 127 CrPC, the court must apply its mind to the material on record and consider the income of the husband. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 2,500 per month without proper application of mind and without considering the husband's income.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 5.9.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur, in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No.22 of 2012, and remanded the matter to the revisional court for fresh consideration. The parties were directed to appear before the revisional court on 7.8.2017.
Law Points
- Section 127 CrPC
- maintenance enhancement
- application of mind
- income consideration
- revision jurisdiction
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 189
Criminal Writ Petition No.16 of 2015
Shri K.B. Zinjarde for the petitioner, Shri Anand S. Deshpande for respondent No.1
Shri Surendra s/o Manoharrao Bhele
Latika w/o Surendra Bhele, Arpit @ Bikin s/o Surendra Bhele, Sanket s/o Surendra Bhele
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the revisional court's order enhancing maintenance under Section 127 CrPC.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (husband) sought to set aside the common judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 2,500 per month.
Filing Reason
The husband challenged the enhancement of maintenance on the ground that the revisional court did not apply its mind and did not consider his income.
Previous Decisions
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anjangaon-Surji, in Misc. Criminal Application No.81 of 2009 dated 12.12.2011, partly allowed the wife's application under Section 127 CrPC and enhanced maintenance from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,500 per month. The wife filed Criminal Revision No.14 of 2012 seeking further enhancement, and the husband filed Criminal Revision No.22 of 2012 challenging the enhancement. The Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur, by common judgment dated 5.9.2014, allowed the wife's revision and enhanced maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per month, and dismissed the husband's revision.
Issues
Whether the revisional court was justified in enhancing maintenance without proper application of mind and without considering the husband's income.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the revisional court did not apply its mind to the material on record and did not consider the husband's income while enhancing maintenance.
The respondent wife supported the revisional court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
While deciding an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of maintenance, the court must apply its mind to the material on record and consider the income of the husband. The revisional court's order enhancing maintenance without such consideration is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The revisional court has not applied its mind to the material on record.
The revisional court has not considered the income of the husband.
Procedural History
The wife filed Misc. Criminal Application No.81 of 2009 under Section 127 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anjangaon-Surji, which was partly allowed on 12.12.2011 enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 1,500 per month. Both parties filed revisions: the wife sought further enhancement (Criminal Revision No.14 of 2012) and the husband challenged the enhancement (Criminal Revision No.22 of 2012). The Additional Sessions Judge-1, Achalpur, by common judgment dated 5.9.2014, allowed the wife's revision and enhanced maintenance to Rs. 2,500 per month, and dismissed the husband's revision. The husband then filed the present Criminal Writ Petition No.16 of 2015 before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 127
