Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.8 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Jyoti Lal wife of Manindra Kumar Sinha, D/O Lala Prakash Chandra Lal, resident of M.P.Bagh, Ara, P.S.- Ara Town, Distt.- Bhojpur at present residing at 128, A.G.Colony, PS Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna. 2. Miss Anushka, daughter of Baxi Manindra Kumar Sinha, under the guardianship of Smt. Jyoti Lal (Mother and Guardian boty), resident of M.P.Bagh, Ara, P.S.- Ara Town, Distt.- Bhojpur at present residing at 128, A.G.Colony, PS Shastrinagar, Distt.- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Baxi Manindra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Baxi Ram Prasad, resident of Mansa Pandey Bagh, P.S. Ara Town, District Bhojpur. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, with Mr. Sudha Chandra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. G.P.Jaiswal, APP For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 10 23-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner no.2 is the minor daughter, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2. The claim of maintenance of the petitioners in terms of Section 125 Cr. P. C. was originally allowed on contest by order dated 24.05.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-cum- Additional Munsif-6th, Ara in Miscellaneous Case No. 47 of 2003/ Trial No. 941 of 2004 and the Opposite Party No.2 was directed to make payment of Rs. 1500/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner no.2 for their maintenance. Subsequently, in view of change of circumstances, the petitioners approached the learned Principal Judge, Family Court , Bhojpur at Patna High Court CR. REV. No.8 of 2008 (10) dt.23-08-2012 2 Ara in terms of Section 127 Cr. P.C. and prayed for modification of the original order and enhancement of amount of maintenance. The prayer made on behalf of the petitioners has been allowed by the impugned order dated 21.09.2007 and the quantum of maintenance has been enhanced. Now, the opposite party no.2 has been directed to make payment of Rs. 2500/- per month to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1500/- per month to the petitioner no.2. The petitioners are still not satisfied with the amount of maintenance, as according to the petitioners there has been sharp increase and enhancement of the salary of the opposite party no.2, he being the Government servant. It is strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the sharp increase of the salary of the opposite party no.2 and in view of the fact that there has been inflation and price rise of almost all commodities, the amount of maintenance in favour of the petitioners is further required to be modified and enhanced appropriately. Learned counsel for the petitioners by producing a salary chart of the O.P. No. 2 has tried to impress upon the Court that now the opposite party no.2 is getting around Rs. 40,000/- per month towards his salary and other admissible allowances. Therefore, according to him, the order impugned is fit to be modified and quantum of maintenance is required to be appropriately enhanced. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer. It has been contended that the question of increase of the salary of opposite party no.2 is required to be decided on the basis of the materials produced by the parties. He contends that he has no instruction about the enhancement of salary of opposite party no.2. He further contends that if there has been any enhancement of salary of opposite party no.2, then the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.8 of 2008 (10) dt.23-08-2012 3 petitioners have got a remedy under Sections 127 Cr. P.C., and issues of facts are required to be raised and contested before, and decided by the original court. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised herein can be appropriately raised before, and dealt with by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara in a proceeding under Section 127 Cr. P.C. If the petitioners approach the learned Family Court [STATUTE] produced by the parties the learned Family Court comes to a finding that there has been sharp increase in the salary of opposite party no.2, and thereby there has been change of circumstances, then it is expected that the learned Family Court shall pass an appropriate order for modification/ alteration/ enhancement of quantum of maintenance payable to the petitioners by the opposite party no.2. One more grievance has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that even the present quantum of maintenance fixed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ara is not being regularly paid to the petitioners by the opposite party no.2. Section 128 Cr. P.C. provides a remedy for such a relief before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. If the opposite party no.2 is not carrying out the order and is not making payment of maintenance regularly to the petitioners, then they are well advised to approach the learned Family Court under Section 128 Cr. P. C. for redressal of such a grievance. In view of alternative remedy available to the petitioners under Section 127 as also under Section 128 Cr. P.C., as indicated above, the present petition is permitted to be Patna High Court CR. REV. No.8 of 2008 (10) dt.23-08-2012 4 withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara for appropriate reliefs. It is expected

Applicable IPC Section: 127

Statute Text:
Section 127 of the Indian Penal Code. Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in sections 125 And 126. Whoever receives any property knowing the same to have been taken in the commission of any of the offences mentioned in sections 125 and 126, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine and to forfeiture of the property so received.