IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2003 Smt. Bhawani Devi W/o Sri Tej Singh A.D.O. Panchayat (Retired) D/o Sri Madho Singh R/o 2 / 3, Snowden House, Ayarpatta, Nainital, Presently residing in Village and P.O. Saur Kotabagh, District Nainital. ...…………. Revisionist Versus 1. Tej Singh S/o late Sri Mohan Singh A.D.O. Panchayat, Vikas Khand Bazpur (since retired) Presently residing at Ward No. 2, Ram Nagar, District Nainital. 2. State of Uttaranchal. ...…………. Respondents Mr. M.S. Mer, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for respondent State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 06.11.2003, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2002, whereby said court has dismissed the application of the revisionist, moved under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.). 2 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist got married to respondent No. 1 in early 1970s. In the year 1982, she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. It was pleaded in said application that at that point of time the respondent No. 1 was getting Rs. 500/- per month as salary, on the post of Panchayat Secretary. The application was contested by respondent No. 1. However, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court (Munsif / Judicial Magistrate, Nainital) vide his order dated 3rd of April 1982, allowed the application (Criminal Misc. Case No. 04 of 1982), and directed respondent No. 1 to pay the revisionist Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 1 got promotions and his salary increased. On the first application moved under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 17 of 1992, the trial court (Munsif / Judicial Magistrate, Nainital) considering the changed circumstances, enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 200/- per month to Rs. 450/- per month. Again, in the year 2002, the revisionist filed yet another application which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2002 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, for enhancement of the maintenance under Section 127 of 3 Cr.P.C., as by then family court has been established at Nainital. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, after hearing the parties, found that since the respondent No. 1 has retired from service, as such no further enhancement is required in the amount of maintenance. Aggrieved by said impugned order dated 06.11.2003, this revision has been preferred by the revisionist / applicant. 4) Learned counsel for the parties admitted that now respondent No. 1 has retired from service. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that what is important is the economic status of the parties and not the mere fact of retirement. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that while rejecting the application for further enhancement, the trial court has accepted the fact that in the year 2002, respondent No. 1 was getting pension at the rate of Rs. 2,010/- per month. On behalf of the revisionist it is further pointed out that during the pendency of this revision the amount of pension of respondent No. 1 has further increased to Rs. 5,884/- per month, as per the record of the office of the Senior Treasury Officer, Nainital. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 1 is now an old person and apart from other expenses his medical expenses have also increased. It is further submitted that the revisionist has spent a large amount received as post retiral dues in the marriage of his daughter. 4 5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that in view of the increase in the amount of pension of respondent No. 1, and further considering the fact that Rs. 450/- is too meager an amount for maintenance of the revisionist, the revision deserved to be allowed. 6) Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.11.2003, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 2002, is hereby set aside, and the application for enhancement under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. is allowed partly, enhancing the maintenance payable by respondent No 1 to the revisionist to Rs. 700/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2004. The respondent No. 1 is allowed to pay the arrears of maintenance to the revisionist within three months from today, and thereafter Rs. 700/- per month in future. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. March 08, 2010. H. Negi 5