N. Pandey and A.K. Ganguly, JJ.
1. This Misc. Appeal has been preferred against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Maintenance case No. 142 (M) of 1993, whereby and whereunder, the appellant herein was directed to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- for maintenance of his wife.
2. There appears no dispute that Rashmi Sinha, the sole respondent, is the legally wedded wife of the appellant. The marriage of the couple was solemnised on 15.5.1989 in accordance with Hindu rights and customs at Patna. Unfortunately Rashmi Sinha after some time noticed that her husband had developed illicit relationship with one Manju Devi. The further allegation is that the appellant used to assault the respondent and to demand money for purchasing motorbike etc. It is alleged that the appellant forcibly turned the respondent out of the house and withheld all the belongings, including ornaments etc. It is further stated in spite of bet efforts and persuasion the appellant refused to maintain the lady, hence the petition for maintenance was filed.
3. The appellant filed show cause denying all the allegations and accepted that respondent was his legally wedded wife. According to him, the respondent herself left residing with the appellant and started living in a rented house at Kankarbag as also shifted her belongings. It has also been alleged that respondent had developed illicit relationship with her brother-in-law.
4. Both the parties examined different witnesses in support of their cases. According to respondent, the income of her husband was about Rs. 4000/- per month. The court below also having examined different witnesses, found that the appellant had sufficient means to maintain her wife. He has also held that the appellant deliberately neglected to maintain his wife. It has also held that respondent had no independent source of income.
5. Mr. Upadhyaya learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the Court below has exceeded his jurisdiction, while awarding a maintenance of Rs. 500/- since monthly income of the appellant in no circumstance could be assessed more than Rs. 1500/-. He further contended since the respondent was living in adultery and had developed illicit relationship with another person, therefore, not entitled for maintenance. That apart, no convincing evidence was brought on the record to show that this appellant ever refused to reside with the lady and/or to maintain her. Similarly no satisfactory evidence could be adduced by the respondent to establish the charge regarding demand of dowry. learned Counsel further contended that in any view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 500/- as monthly maintenance was quite excessive, therefore, this Court should at least reduce the amount having regard to the actual income of the appellant.
6. Mr. Upadhyaya lastly contended that in terms of the impugned order, the appellant is required to pay maintenance with interest from 15.12.1993. Therefore, unless he be permitted to deposit such amount in easy instalments it would be practically difficult for him to comply with the direction.
7. We have already noticed that relationship of husband and wife was not in dispute. The court below having appreciated the testimony of different witnesses has found that the appellant forcibly turned the respondent out of the house and refused to maintain her. The court has also found that because of the illicit relationship of this appellant with other lady, it was not humanly possible for the respondent to reside with him. A wife has a right to exclusive association of her husband unpolluted by any other woman, Therefore, having regard to the finding of facts recorded by the Court below, as also the allegations levelled against the appellant, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
8. Although Mr. Upadhaya has strongly contended that quantum of compensation was quite excessive, but having regard to the findings recorded by the court below, particularly with respect to point No. 2, we are convinced that the appellant had sufficient means to maintain his wife by asking payment of Rs. 500/- as directed by the Court below. However, since the appellant is required to deposit the amount of maintenance with reflect from 15.12.1993 in one lumpsum, we permit him to deposit such amount in four equal instalments, besides monthly maintenance in terms of the impugned order.
9. Before parting with this order we would like to add what this cannot be ignored that the limit of monthly allowance of maintenance to the wife or children by the court is only Rs. 500/- per month, But having regard to the well-known devaluation of money, nobody can ignore that there is urgent need of enhancement of the above-said allowances by a suitable amendment. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, that by a suitable amendment in the Act by an appropriate legislature the amount of Rs. 500/- be enhanced as comparable to the rise of cost of living. It cannot be ignored that standard and cost of living has grown higher, as regard to the position and standard of living at the relevant time, when the limit of Rs. 500/- was fixed by the Parliament. It remained the same for decades.
10. We are conscious that expression 'maintenance' has not been statutorily defined under the Code. But undisputedly it includes expenses for fooding clothing, residence, medical educational and other expenses, relating to normal pursuit of life. Therefore, while awarding maintenance, it is not only the question of minimum amount on which one can just exist, but the standard of living of the parties must also be taken into consideration.
11. We are tempted to notice that having appreciated the devaluation of money, as comparable to the period, when maximum limit of Rs. 500/- was fixed as also having regard to rise of maintenance cost, the Legislature of West Bengal by a suitable amendment, vide Bengal Act 14 of 1995, substituted the words 'Five hundred' by 'One thousand and five hundred'.
12. In the background of the facts, stated above, we would like to draw the attention of the State Government to examine possibilities of a suitable amendment, on the line and pattern, which the Legislature of West Bengal has adopted. Subject to the aforesaid observation and modification of the impugned order, this appeal is hereby dismissed, but parties are left to bear their own costs.