S. Brahmanandam Vs. S. Rama Devi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderp. lakshmana reddy, j.1. as the parties to both the cases are common, i consider it just and convenient to dispose of the same by way of common order.2. criminal petition no. 2050 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband to quash the order, dated 4-12-2002 passed in crl.m.p. no. 4487 of 2001 in m.c. no. 87 of 1995 on the file of the additional judicial magistrate of first class, nizamabad and also the order dated 24-12-2003 passed in crl.r.p. no. 14 of 2003 on the file of the sessions judge, at nizamabad.3. crl.rc. no. 479 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order, dated 24-11-2003 passed in crl.rp. no. 16 of 2003 on the file of the sessions judge, nizamabad which was filed by the first respondent-wife against the orders dated 4-12-2002 passed in crl.m.p......

Judgment:
ORDER

P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.

1. As the parties to both the cases are common, I consider it just and convenient to dispose of the same by way of common order.

2. Criminal Petition No. 2050 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband to quash the order, dated 4-12-2002 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 in M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad and also the order dated 24-12-2003 passed in Crl.R.P. No. 14 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, at Nizamabad.

3. Crl.RC. No. 479 of 2004 is filed by the petitioner-husband aggrieved by the order, dated 24-11-2003 passed in Crl.RP. No. 16 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad which was filed by the first respondent-wife against the orders dated 4-12-2002 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 in M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad.

4. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:

Smt. S. Ramadevi-respondent herein filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad against he husband S. Brahmanandam-petitioner herein seeking maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month alleging that S. Brahmanandam married her on 13-6-1982 after the death of his first wife Smt. Saroja. Sri S. Brahmanandam had one son and one daughter through his first wife, aged 7 years and 3 years respectively at the time of death of his first wife. They have become majors aged 21 years and 18 years. Smt. Ramadevi has looked after the children born through the first wife of S. Brahmanandam with great care and affection for about 7 years after her marriage and she begot two children viz. Kum. Srigouri and Sridhar through her husband and they are now aged 11 years and 9 years respectively. She further alleged that since about seven years, her husband started ill-treating her by abusing and insulting before the children and also before the relatives and neighbours and he is always suspicious and always suspects her character and he did not provide proper food and clothing to her and her children and subjected her to cruelty. Having fed up with the behaviour of her husband, she came out of her marital house leaving her son and daughter with her husband and she is an illiterate and she is not in a position to earn any income and she is at the mercy of her relations and she cannot depend upon them for a long time. Her husband refused to maintain her though he has sufficient means. She further stated in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that her husband is getting monthly salary of Rs. 8.000/- and further he has got three storeyed house at Kothi Residency, Hyderabad and getting rents of Rs. 5,000/- per month and apart from that her husband has got three more houses at Ramachandra-puram and two of them have been let out and getting rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month.

5. Originally the learned Magistrate dismissed the M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on 10-4-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the wife filed revision before the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad in Crl.R.P. No. 11 of 1997 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision on 8-9-1998. Thereafter the wife filed petition in Crl.P. No. 651 of 1999 on the file of this Court and this Court allowed the said petition on 1-10-2001 and directed the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad to determine the quantum of maintenance after giving opportunity to both sides. Thereafter, the wife filed petition in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 before the learned Magistrate seeking for determination of quantum of maintenance to be granted to her in view of the orders passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 651 of 1999 on 1-10-2001. The learned Magistrate numbered the said petition as Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 in M.C. No. 87 of 1995. The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry in the said petition. Duing the course of enquiry the wife Ramadevi examined herself as PW-1 and her husband Brahmanandam examined himself as RW-1 besides examining one more witness as RW-2 and exhibited eight documents as Exs. R-1 to R-8. Considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides regarding the quantum of maintenance, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition in part directing the husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the petition i.e. from the date of filing of M.C. No. 87 of 1995 on 7-12-1995 and also directed to pay costs of Rs. 500/-.

6. Aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance, the wife filed Crl.R.P. No. 16 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. The learned Sessions Judge after due hearing on both sides allowed the revision petition and enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 400/- per month to Rs. 1,000/- with effect from 24-9-2001 i.e. from the date of amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also directed the husband to pay costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

7. Aggrieved by the said orders of the learned Sessions Judge, the husband Brahmanandam filed Crl.R.C. No. 479 of 2004 challenging the enhancement of maintenance granted by the Sessions Court contending as follows:

8. The wife who is the first respondent herein filed petition in Crl.M.P. No. 4487 of 2001 for determination of quantum of maintenance before the Magistrate and she has not filed any petition for seeking enhancement of maintenance amount pursuant to the amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C. Though there was no such application for seeking amendment of the maintenance amount in M.C. No. 87 of 1995, taking into consideration of the subsequent amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C. has granted Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from 24-9-2001 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the claim made by the first respondent herein. The learned Judge ought to have seen that though Section 127 Cr.P.C. enables the respondent for alteration of maintenance due to change of law and in the absence of any claim by the wife for seeking alteration of maintenance in M.C. No. 87 of 1995, the learned Sessions Judge erred in enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 400/- to Rs. l,000/- in view of the amendment brought to Section 125 Cr.P.C. from 24-9-2001. The learned Judge failed to note that apart from the respondent No. 1 herein, the petitioner was blessed with one son through the first wife who is completely blind and prosecuting his studies and who is totally depending on the income of the petitioner herein. Apart from that the petitioner herein was blessed with two children viz. Srigouri and Sridhar through the first respondent herein and the petitioner performed the marriage of Srigouri in the year 2002 by spending considerable amount and also spending considerable amount for bringing up Sridhar who is now studying intermediate. Without taking into consideration of all these aspects, the learned Judge enhanced the maintenance from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1,000/-, though the learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month taking into consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Further the petitioner-husband herein challenged the order of granting of maintenance from the date of the petition @ Rs. 400/- per month by way of revision petition in Crl.R.P. No. 14 of 2003 on the file of Sessions Judge who dismissed the same by separate order dated 24-11-2003. The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of the Magistrate to the extent of giving effect from the date of the petition Instead from the date of order. The said petition is numbered as Crl.P. No. 2050 of 2005. Both these petitions are filed by the husband-Brahmanadam challenging the orders of the Sessions Judge on enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1,000/- per month and the other challenging the confirmation of the order of the Magistrate directing him to pay maintenance from the date of the petition.

10. During the course of hearing of the petitions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-husband contended that the first respondent-wife claimed maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month and the learned Magistrate granted Rs. 400/- per month and the scope of the revision petition filed by the wife before the Sessions Judge is only whether the Magistrate was Justified in not granting the amount as claimed by the wife and under those circumstances, the Sessions Court has no power to grant maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the date of the amendment to Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel further contended that the learned Magistrate without giving any reasons ordered the maintenance (c) Rs. 400/- per month to be paid from the date of filing of MC 87 of 1995 i.e. 7-12-1995 instead from the date of the order and therefore the said order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the amount of Rs. l,000/- granted by the Sessions Judge is highly excessive and that the petitioner is now retired and he has to maintain the children of his both wives and that the first respondent herself left the company of the petitioner and therefore the amount awarded by the learned Magistrate @ Rs. 400/- per month is reasonable, but the learned Magistrate erred in directing the petitioner to pay the same from the date of the petition and that the learned Sessions Judge is not justified in enhancing the amount to Rs. l,000/-. He further contended that the first respondent is now employed and is getting Rs. 1800/- per month as salary and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance in view of the changed circumstances.

11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent-wife submitted that in the evidence the first respondent claimed maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month and that in view of the increase of cost of living, it is not possible for any woman to maintain herself with the meagre sum and that as per the then existing law the Court had no power to grant more than Rs. 500/- and therefore the first respondent had claimed only Rs. 500/- and that subsequently in the year 2001 the amendment is brought out to Section 125 Cr.P.C. and since then the Court has got power to grant maintenance and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly enhanced the maintenance to Rs. l,000/- per month on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the first respondent-wife. Therefore, there is no illegality warranting interference by this Court exercising its revisional powers. He submitted that both the criminal petition and criminal revision case are liable to be dismissed.

12. The learned Counsel for the first respondent supported the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge regarding enhancement and also supported the orders of magistrate regarding the date of commencement of payment of maintenance.

13. The points that arise for determination in both the cases are:

1) Whether the learned Magistrate erred in granting maintenance from the date of the petition without recording reasons therefor?

2} Whether the learned Sessions Judge Justified in enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 400/- to Rs. l,000/- per month with effect from the date of amendment without there being an amendment of the prayer in the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

3) To what amount of maintenance the first respondent is entitled and if so, from what date?

4) To what relief?

POINT No. 1:

14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/husband contended that as per Section 125 Cr.P.C. the maintenance allowance shall be payable only from the date of the order and only for special reasons the Magistrate can grant maintenance from the date of the application and that in the instant case, no reasons are given and therefore the order of the learned Magistrate that the maintenance amount shall be paid from the date of the petition is not sustainable in law. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision in Thanda Suraiah v. Thanda Sharada and Anr. II-1989 (1) Crimes 427 wherein my learned brother Justice Radhakrishna Rao, J., held that in case of reversing a finding given by the Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. it is not desirable for the lower appellate Court to award maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and that granting of past maintenance from the date of dismissal of the petition by the Magistrate or from the date of disposal of the appeal by the lower appellate Court can be justified. In that case no law had been laid down to the effect that the Magistrate cannot pass order directing the respondent to pay maintenance amount from the date of the petition without giving reasons. But, in the peculiar circumstances of that case, the learned Judge held that the order of maintenance shall be given effect from the date of the order and not from the date of petition. The circumstance relied on by the learned Judge is that it was a case of reversal of the finding of the Magistrate by the Revision Court. Here in the instant case the subject matter is the order passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the petition. Therefore, this decision is not at all applicable to the facts of this case.

15. Further the learned Counsel invited my attention to two more decisions of single Judge of this Court dated 29-8-2000 and 8-7-2004 in Dasyam Elizabath Rani and Ors. v. Dasyam Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 539 (AP) : 2001 Cri LJ 47 and Chikkamma @ Parvathamma and Anr. v. Yerriswamy and Anr. 2004 (2) ALD (Crl.) 193 (AP) : 2004 Cri LJ NOC 343. In Dasyam Elizabath Rani's case (supra) my learned brother Justice T.Ch.Surya Rao, J., held that the Court has the discretion to grant maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the application and the Court in either case has to consider all the attendant circumstances and the conduct of the parties in exercising its discretion and that there is no rule of law that ordinarily maintenance should be granted from the date of the order. This decision also does not support the contention that the Magistrate has no power to order maintenance from the date of petition without giving any reasons therefor. In the other decision Chikkamrna @ Parvathamma and another's case (supra) my learned brother Justice C.Y. Somayajulu, J. held that recording of reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of order is not mandatory and it is only where the Magistrate thinks fit to award maintenance from date of petition he has to record reasons. Relying on this decision, the learned Counsel contended that in the instant case no reasons are given ordering maintenance from the date of the petition and therefore, the order is not sustainable to the extent of granting maintenance from the date of petition.

16. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent invited the attention of this Court to the earlier decision of this Court in Thulasi alias Thulja Bai v. Laxman Rao and Anr. 1995 (2) ALT (Cri) 708 (AP) : 1996 Crl LJ 1160 wherein my learned brother Justice B. Subhashan Reddy, J., (as he then was) held that maintenance is to be paid from the date of filing of the petition and the Sessions Judge erred in reversing the order saying that no reasons were assigned for payment from the date of application. The learned Judge held that Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. does not oblige the Magistrate to record reasons to set the date, be it date of application or the date of order. The obligation is, however, inherent to record reasons for granting maintenance. It is observed therein that when the statute is silent regarding stating of reasons, it cannot be read into the same to place obligation on the part of the Court granting maintenance to record reasons to set the date either date of application or the date of the order. The learned Counsel for the first respondent relied upon another decision of this Court in K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba and Ors. 1989 (2) ALT 669 : 1990 Crl LJ 1880 wherein my learned brother Justice Bhaskar Rao, J. (as he then was) held that Clause (2) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. states that the Court can order maintenance from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the petition and therefore, the discretion is given to the Court and that merely because of the words, 'so ordered' contained. in Section 125 Cr.P.C., 'from the date of the application for maintenance', it cannot be said that the Court must give special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. It is further held that there is no mention specifically in Section 125 Cr.P.C. that the Court must give special reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. The learned Counsel for first respondent further relied upon the Division Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Krishna Jain v. Dharam Raj Jain 1992 Cri LJ 1028, wherein it is held that there is no rule that normally maintenance be awarded from the date of order and if it is awarded from the date of application recording of reasons is necessary.

17. As seen from the above referred decisions relied on by the counsel for the respondents it is clear that there is no hard and fast rule that maintenance shall be ordered only from the date of the order. Even if the Magistrate intends to give effect to the maintenance from the date of the petition, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons therefor. Depending upon the facts of each case the Magistrate can exercise discretion. Even in the decision in Dasyam Elizabath Rani and Ors. v. Dasyam Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 2001 Cri LJ 47 (supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Justice T.Ch. Surya Rao, J. did not lay down any law that reasons are required to be given by the Magistrate to grant maintenance from the date of the petition. On the other hand, it is held therein that there is nothing in Section 125 Cr.P.C. to show that allowance shall be normally payable from the date of order. The learned Judge observed that the discretion is vested with the Magistrate and that the maintenance is to be paid from the date of the order or petition and that the discretion shall be exercised always in a judicious manner, having due regard to the backdrop of the case, the length of time occupied by the proceedings, the interim maintenance granted, if any, earlier during the pendency of the proceedings, the capacity of the parties, the requirement of the claimants, and the basic principle of preventing vagrancy. Therefore, I am unable to understand as to how this decision in Dasyam Elizabath Rani and Ors. case 2001 Cri LJ 47 (supra) is helpful to the petitioner herein. So far as the decision in Chikkamma @ Parvathamma and another's case, 2004 Cri LJ NOC 343 (supra) the facts of that case are that the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance from the date of the order and the same was challenged by way of revision before the Sessions Court by the petitioners therein and the said revision was also dismissed and then those petitioners filed Crl.P. No. 2295 of 2002 before this Court and in that criminal petition my learned brother Justice C.Y. Somayajulu, J. held that recording of reasons for awarding maintenance from date of order is not mandatory and it is only where the Magistrate thinks fit to award maintenance from date of petition he has to record reasons. In the said decision my learned brother observed that it is clear from the Sub-section (2) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the order for payment of maintenance should be given effect from the date of order and the exception is ordering payment from the date of petition and that when the claimants failed to file a petition seeking interim maintenance, they cannot blame the Court for not awarding maintenance from the date of the petition. In the said decision my learned brother observed as follows:

In the facts and circumstances, the Magistrate, in exercise of the discretion vested in him, awarded maintenance only from the date of order, but not from the date of petition. As stated earlier the recording of reasons for awarding maintenance from the date of order is not mandatory and it is only in case where the Magistrate thinks it fit to award maintenance from the date of petition, he has to record reasons as held in Tulasi alias Thulja Bai case 1996 Cri LJ 1160 (supra).

18. As seen from the said observation, my learned brother Justice C.Y. Somayajulu, J., appears to have been under the Impression that in Tulasi alias Thulja Bal's case (supra) Justice B. Subhashan Reddy, J. (as he then was) held that the Magistrate has to record reasons in case the maintenance is to be ordered from the date of the petition. I have carefully gone through the said decision in Tulasi alias Thulja Bai case (supra) and found that it is nowhere held or observed that the Magistrate Is required to record reasons for granting maintenance from the date of the petition. On the other hand, Justice B. Subhashan Reddy, J. (as he then was) held that the maintenance is to be paid from the date of filing of the petition and the Sessions Judge erred in reversing the order of the Magistrate on the ground that no reasons were assigned by the Magistrate for payment from the date of application. My learned brother Justice B. Subhashan Reddy, J., (as he then was) has categorically held that Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not oblige the Magistrate to record reasons to set the date, be it date of application or the date of order and the obligation is, however, inherent to record reasons for granting maintenance. The learned Judge further observed that when the statute is silent regarding stating of reasons, it cannot be read into the same to place obligation on the part of the Court granting maintenance to record reasons to set the date, either date of application or the date of the order. Therefore, my learned brother Justice C. Y. Somayajulu, J. appear to have misread the judgment in Tulasi alias Thulja Bai's case, 1996 Cri LJ 1160 (supra). Further in view of the earlier judgments of this Court in K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba and Ors. 1990 Cri LJ 1880 (supra), Thulasi alias Thulja Bai v. Laxman Rao and Anr. (supra) and Dasyam Elizabath Rani and Ors. v. Dasyam Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 2001 Cri LJ 47 (supra), the decision in Chikkamma @ Parvathamma and Anr. v. Yerriswamy and Anr. 2004 Cri LJ NOC 343 (supra) is not binding on this Court. Further the facts of the case in Chikkamma @ Parvathamma and Anr. v. Yerriswamy and Anr. (supra) are also not similar to the facts of this case. The facts in that case are that the Magistrate ordered maintenance from the date of the order and it was under challenge. Whereas, in the instant case the Magistrate has awarded maintenance from the date of the petition. Thus, the facts of the cited case are also not similar to the facts of this case. For the reasons stated supra, I concur with the view expressed by this Court in earlier decisions viz. K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba and Ors. 1990 Cri LJ 1880 (supra), Thulasi alias Thulja Bai v. Laxman Rao and Anr. 1996 Cri LJ 1160 (supra) and Dasyam Elizabath Rani and Ors. v. Dasyam Pradeep Kumar and Anr. 2001 Cri LJ 47 (supra) to hold that there is no need for the Magistrate to record reasons for grant of maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the petition. But, however, the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion in a judicious manner, having due regard to the facts of the particular case, the length of time occupied by the proceedings, the interim maintenance granted, if any, earlier during the pendency of the proceedings, the capacity of the parties, the requirements of the claimants etc. Keeping in mind the basic principle of preventing vagrancy. Here in the instant case, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month from the date of the petition. Admittedly interim maintenance was not granted to the wife during the pendency of the application. Moreover, the amount granted was only Rs. 400/- per month. Obviously, taking those circumstances into consideration the learned Magistrate in his discretion granted maintenance from the date of the petition. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in such orders passed by the learned Magistrate taking into consideration the meagre amount awarded by the Magistrate towards maintenance. Thus, this point is found against the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 479 of 2004.

POINT No. 2:

19. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that though the wife claimed only Rs. 500/- per month towards maintenance in the application filed by her, the learned Sessions Judge erroneously enhanced the amount from Rs. 400/- to Rs. l,000/- per month though the application is not amended seeking more than Rs. 500/- per month. The learned Counsel further contended that even if it is assumed that the Sessions Judge has got power to enhance the amount even without the amendment to the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this is not a fit case to enhance the amount to Rs. l,000/-. He submitted that the grown up children are with the petitioner and he has to spend lot of amounts for them and he has got children through his first wife also. He further submitted that the respondent-wife is working as employee and earning Rs. 1800/- per month and therefore she is no longer entitled for any maintenance amount and she can maintain herself. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife contended that even without the amendment of the application, the Sessions Judge has got every power to enhance the amount as there is no bar to grant maintenance more than Rs. 500/- per month in view of the amendment brought out to Section 125 Cr.P.C. and that the Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record enhanced the amount from Rs. 400/- to Rs. l,000/- giving reasons therefor and therefore this Court cannot interfere with such reasonsed order of the Sessions Judge.

20. Firstly it has to be seen whether the learned Sessions Judge has got power to award more than the amount claimed in the application towards maintenance. The Apex Court very recently in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : 2005CriLJ2141 held that in an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at the time when maximum limit of maintenance was prescribed, the request for enhancement over and above the maximum amount fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. prior to the amendment, can be considered and that the plea that original application has not been amended is too technical to be raised in view of the fact that Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits increase in the quantum. A similar contention as raised in this case was raised before the Apex Court. In the cited case, the application under Section 125 CriP.C. was filed on 1-9-1995. The Magistrate granted maintenance @ Rs. 350/- per month by his order, dated 31-7-1999. The High Court enhanced the quantum awarded to the child from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 500/- with effect from the order passed by the Magistrate. The said amount of maintenance was enhanced by the Apex Court. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the Apex Court rejected the contention of the learned Counsel therein that as there was no amendment made to the claim petition for the enhancement the Court cannot grant more than the amount claimed, observing that such a plea is too technical. Therefore, in view of the cited decision of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the Sessions Judge has got no power to grant maintenance more than the amount claimed in the petition for the period subsequent to the amendment of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as Section 127 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to enhance the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on proof of a change in the circumstances. Section 127 Cr.P.C. does not mandate that an application is required to be filed to enhance the maintenance amount. The only requirement is on proof of change of circumstances. The Court can enhance or reduce the maintenance amount as the proof of change of circumstances. Here in the instant case, at the time of giving evidence the respondent-wife categorically stated about the income of her husband-petitioner herein and also the requirement of at least Rs. l,000/- per month for her maintenance. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence adduced and also admissions made by the petitioner-husband and enhanced the maintenance to Rs. l,000/-. It will be useful to extract the relevant portion of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, which reads as follows:

In the evidence, the respondent has clearly admitted that he is getting gross salary of Rs. 18,485/- and he is having three storeyed building in Kothi, Hyderabad and 1000 sq.yards of site on which mulgies are constructed. He also admitted that he is having LIG quarter and he is also getting rents from the mulgies constructed in 1000 sq. yards at Ramachandrapuram. It is, therefore, clear from his evidence that the respondent is having substantial properties and getting rents and also drawing his gross salary of Rs. 18.485/-. The revision petitioner claimed maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month only. Considering the 'standard of life of the respondent, present cost of living and other circumstances, I feel the claim of the revision petitioner for Rs. 1000/- per month towards her maintenance is just and reasonable. The revision petitioner is therefore, entitled to maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month with effect from 24-9-2001 'as prayed for.

From the above said order, it is clear that the respondent himself admitted about his getting gross salary of Rs. 18,485/- per month, having three storeyed building in Kothi, Hyderabad besides 1000 sq. yards of site in which mulgles were constructed and getting rents from the mulgies besides having one LIG quarter at Ramachandrapuram. The learned Judge gave categorical finding that the husband is having substantial properties and getting rents besides getting gross salary of Rs. 18,485/-. Under these peculiar circumstances of the case and also considering the standard of life of the husband and the cost of living and other circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge enhanced the amount from Rs. 400/- to Rs. l,000/- per month giving effect from 24-9-2001 the date on which the maximum prescribed is deleted from Section 125 Cr.P.C. I do not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge warranting interference by this Court by way of revision. However as the learned Counsel contended that the petitioner is now retired and the respondent is gainfully employed and is capable to maintain herself. I consider it necessary to give liberty to the petitioner herein to approach the learned Magistrate and file an application for alteration or cancellation of the amount granted and to prove that the respondent-wife is capable to maintain herself and there is no need to order maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge enhanced the costs from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/-. As the petitioner approached the several Courts, I do not find that the Sessions Judge is not justified in granting Rs. 5,000/- towards costs. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no need to interfere with any portion of the impugned order. Thus, this point is held accordingly.

POINT No. 3:

21. In view of my findings on points 1 and 2, the petitioner-husband shall pay maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month from 7-12-1995 till 24-9-2001 and @ Rs. 1,000/- per month from 24-9-2001 till it is altered or set aside by the competent Court. Thus, this point is held accordingly.

POINT No. 4:

22. In the result, Crl. P. No. 2050 of 2004 and Cril. R. C. No. 479 of 2004 are dismissed. The petitioner-husband is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate under Section 127, Cr.P.C. If he so advised for alteration or variation of the maintenance granted in these proceedings.