Rangnath Vs. Smt. Indira

.....the authorities. this brochure or admission notification issued by the state or other competent authority cannot be altered at a subsequent stage particularly once the process of admission has begun. there is hardly any exception to this accepted rule of law. section 10: [swatanter kumar, c.j., a.p. deshpande & smt. nishita mhatre,jj] admission to professional colleges - technical courses - approval to additional seats or to start new course - cut off dates held, the settled principle of law is that merit of the applicant is the primary criteria which would determine his rank as well as the college where he would be entitled to admission. this rule should not be frustrated as it will tantamount to entirely upsetting the object of admissions based on merit oriented method and would cast cloud on the fairness and transparency of the method of admission. one of the ways in which merit can be defeated is allowing increase in the intake strength or commencement if new colleges beyond cut-off date and admissions beyond the last date specified in the notification/calendar issued by the concerned authorities. this can be illustrated by giving an example. college a which is running a professional course like engineering or mba etc. has an intake capacity of 60 seats which has duly been notified in the information brochure. however, after the cut-off date, approval is granted by the aicte and thereafter, the process is taken up by the state and the intake capacity of the college is increased by 30 more seats. these seats would obviously, not be notified in the information brochure and the candidate who are meritorious and for whom college a; be the college of reference could not get seats or give preference as the seats were limited. none had the proper knowledge about the increase in intake of seats though at a much subsequent stage and may be even after the last date of admission is over either by themselves or under the order of the court even it is put on the..........rs. 500/- per month, the present revision application has been filed by the applicant.2. mr. shabbir hussain, the learned counsel for the applicant rangnath (for short 'the husband') submits that the court below did not take into consideration the fact that the husband was paying maintenance to the non-applicant smt. indira rangnath jeevanapurkar (for short 'the wife') at the rate of rs. 300/- per month under section 125 cr.p.c. by virtue of the order dated 24.9.1991 passed by the learned judicial magistrate first class, 4th court, nagpur.3. mr. shabbir hussain, the learned counsel for the husband further subsist that the applicant husband is an employee in maharashtra state electricity board as assistant inspector and his carry home salary is rs. 1269/-. mr. shabbir submits that though salary of the applicant is rs. 3739/-, but after deductions, he only gets a sum of rs. 1269/- and therefore, award of maintenance at the rate ofrs.500/-is expensive. i have considered the contentions raised by mr. shabbir hussain, the learned counsel for the applicant and in my view, none of the contentions raised by the learned counsel has any merit. the amount of maintenance payable by the husband under section 125 cr.p.c. is always subject to adjustment in the amount of maintenance awarded by the civil court either finally or by way of maintenance pendente lite and therefore, the amount of rs. 300/- per month which the applicant husband is paying to the wife under the orders of the criminal court shall be adjusted in the maintenance awarded to the wife by the civil court in the proceedings under section 24 c.p.c. as regards the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial court, ordinarily the court in revisional jurisdiction exercising its jurisdiction under section 115 c.p.c. does not interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court under section 24 c.p.c. not only that the award of maintenance pendente lite at the rate of rs. 500/- per month is just and.....