Judgment:
N.P. Singh, J.
1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 9.4.1992 passed by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Revn. No. 88/90 whereby he reduced the maintenance allowance payable to the applicant to Rs. 150/- per month from Rs. 200/- as was granted by the Trial Magistrate.
2. The applicant/wife moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate, Nauganj, Rewa for grant of maintenance allowance to her on the ground that she was ousted by the non-applicant/husband from his house and had deserted her and he had married another lady.
3. Pursuant to the notice the non-applicant/husband appeared and stated that he was all along willing and ready to maintain the applicant.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties allowed maintenance allowance to the applicant to Rs. 200/- per month payable from the date of the order. As against that the non-applicant/husband preferred criminal revision before the Sessions Judge who reduced the maintenance allowance payable to the applicant to Rs. 150/- per month.
5. It is admitted that the applicant is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant and she is leading deserted life. It is also admitted that non-applicant/husband has married another lady.
6. Shri Pranay Gupta, learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that there is evidence on the record to show that the non-applicant possesses four acres of canal irrigated land and has also a very flourishing cloth business. Therefore, their was no justification for the learned Revisional Court below in reducing the maintenance allowance to the applicant.
7. In view of the ever increasing trend in the price index of the essential commodities the maintenance allowance granted to the applicant deserves to be enhanced to meet the demand of cost of living.
8. On perusal of the order under revision it is obvious that the reason assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in reducing the maintenance allowance payable to the applicant is not based on the proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside.
9. Keeping in view the disability of the applicant, who is said to be a hump lady and the ever increasing trend in the price index of the essential commodities the maintenance allowance to the applicant deserves to be enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month which shall be payable to the applicant from the date of the order of the Judicial Magistrate. The revision petition is accordingly allowed.