Mst. Vidya Devi Vs. Basant Kumar and anr.

criminal procedure code - section 125--maintenance--reduction of--meagre income of husband--addl. sessions judge reducing amount of maintenance from rs. 75/- to rs. 50/- p.m. and maintaining order of maintenance of children--held, order is not improper.;in view of the meagre income of the husband, if the learned additional sessions judge has reduced the amount of maintenance of the petitioner from rs. 75/- to rs.50/- per month by maintaining the amount of rs. 60/- for the two children as such the order cannot be said to be improper.;revision dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 6. the learned counsel for the non petitioner submitted that the non-petitioner is in such a poor financial position that even the amount ordered to be paid by the addl......be about rs. 240/- per month. that, the total amount payable according to the order of the learned magistrate to the wife and the two children was rs. 135/- only whereas rs. 105/- were still left with the husband to maintain himself alone. the learned counsel for the petitioner there fore, urged that the interference by the addl. sessions judge in the order passed by the learned magistrate was not called for.6. the learned counsel for the non petitioner submitted that the non-petitioner is in such a poor financial position that even the amount ordered to be paid by the addl. sessions judge, could not be arranged by him and he had to suffer in imprisonment for that reason.7. the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the position that nothing could be recovered from the non-petitioner towards the amount of maintenance and therefore, he had to be sent to suffer imprisonment for that reason.8. in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the meagre income of the husband, if the learned additional sessions judge has reduced the amount of maintenance of the petitioner from rs. 75/- to rs. 5(sic)/- per month by maintaining the amount of rs. 60/- for the two children as such the order cannot be said to be improper.9. the revision petition having no merits is, therefore, dismissed.