1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.1015 of 2009 ====================================================== Shyam Nandan Prasad, son of Late Sone Lal Sah, resident of village-Phulwariya Math, P.S.-Paru, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus Sumitra Devi, wife of Sri Shyam Nandan Prasad, resident of village-Bansghat, P.S.-Chakia, District- East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Abinash Kumar, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate :Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ravindra Kumar, A.P.P. 5 12-07-2011 This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 17.06.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Motihari in Maintenance Case No.365/2005 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.1600/-per month as maintenance to the opposite party w.e.f.25.06.1999. Heard Mr. Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party Sumitra Devi, wife of the petitioner vide 2 Maintenance Case No.365 of 2005 claiming that she is the wife of the petitioner. She gave birth to a daughter who was married. The petitioner is addicted to wine and he was in the habit of assaulting the opposite party. It has also been alleged by the opposite party that her food, clothes and essential articles were stopped by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner has also married with another lady. The petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the opposite party whereas the opposite party has no means for her livelihood. After the trial impugned order has been passed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petition for maintenance has been filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. prior to amendment of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The upper limit for the grant of maintenance was Rs.500/-per month and this limit has been omitted by Act 50 of 3 2001 (Section 2) w.e.f.24.09.2001. As such, the learned Principal Judge was not entitled to grant maintenance to the opposite party at the rate of Rs.1600/-per month w.e.f.25.06.1999. He has further contended that the amount of maintenance should not be granted with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that it is admitted fact that opposite party is wife of the petitioner. She has no means of her livelihood whereas the petitioner has sufficient means for maintenance of the opposite party. Earlier the opposite party was getting Rs.400/-per month as interim maintenance, which was not sufficient for her maintenance. Therefore, after taking evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Principal Judge has granted Rs.1600/-per month as the amount of maintenance. He has further submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 24.09.2008 passed in this case, the 4 petitioner has been directed to pay the amount fixed by the learned Principal Judge from 24.09.2001. In pursuant to that order, the petitioner has complied with the order. The grant of maintenance of Rs.1600/-per month from the date of the order i.e.17.06.2008 will effect that the amount paid to the opposite party @ Rs.1600/-per month w.e.f.24.09.2001 will create trouble paid to the petitioner and as the amount already to her would be adjusted in her future maintenance, it will create trouble to her. The amount of Rs.1600/-per month itself is not sufficient for her maintenance and any adjustment or curtailment in that amount will be injustice to the opposite party. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that it is admitted fact that opposite party is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she has no means for 5 her livelihood whereas the petitioner has sufficient means. The learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence of both the parties adduced on their behalf and has come to the conclusion that Rs.1600/-per month is fit to be given to opposite party by the petitioner as maintenance. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order except to the extent that opposite party is entitled to get Rs.1600/- per month w.e.f.24.09.2001. With the said modification in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed. V.K.Pandey- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J)