Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Gowramma, wife of the respondent Laxmikanthiah, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, FTC-V at Madhugiri, in Crl.R.P.No.47/2009. The background is that the petitioner and her son had earlier filed C.Mis.No.23/1994 against the respondent for maintenance, which was allowed on 04.11.1995, granting each maintenance of Rs.300 per month. After about ten years, alleging change in circumstances, the petitioner filed C.Mis.No.55/2006 under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.3,000 per month. The Magistrate at Koratagere, after contest and evidence, allowed the petition on 02.02.2009, directing the respondent to pay Rs.3,000 per month from that date. The respondent challenged this order in revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the revision in part, reducing the maintenance to Rs.1,500 per month. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court examined the material on record and found that the Magistrate had considered the evidence, including the respondent's salary certificate showing his income had increased, and the rise in cost of living. The Sessions Judge, in revision, re-appreciated the evidence and reduced the maintenance, which the High Court held was beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The High Court noted that the revisional court could not substitute its own view on facts unless the order was perverse or illegal. Since the Magistrate's order was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse, the Sessions Judge erred in interfering. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the Magistrate's order directing payment of Rs.3,000 per month as maintenance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Enhancement under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. - Change in Circumstances - The wife sought enhancement of maintenance from Rs.300 to Rs.3,000 per month due to husband's increased salary and rise in cost of living - The Magistrate allowed enhancement to Rs.3,000 per month - The Sessions Judge in revision reduced it to Rs.1,500 per month - Held that the Sessions Judge exceeded revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding perversity or illegality in the Magistrate's order (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Scope under Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Interference with Findings of Fact - The revisional court cannot substitute its own view on facts unless the order is perverse or illegal - The Sessions Judge's reduction of maintenance was based on his own assessment of evidence, which is impermissible - Held that the order of the Sessions Judge was liable to be set aside and the Magistrate's order restored (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Judge erred in reducing the maintenance amount enhanced by the Magistrate under Section 127(1) Cr.P.C. despite evidence of change in circumstances.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, FTC-V at Madhugiri in Crl.R.P.No.47/2009, and restored the order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Magistrate at Koratagere in C.Mis.No.55/2006 directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month.
Law Points
- Maintenance enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
- Change in circumstances
- Revision jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
- Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
