Smt. Durgwatiyabai Vs. Govinddas - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh nagar tatha gram nivesh adhiniyam (23 of 1973)section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishna kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme proviso prescribing time limit held, object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to provide time limit to consider objections and suggestion and to provide a deeming clause so that the authority would act in quite promptitude. proviso unequivocal, categorical and unambiguous and does not permit any other kind of construction but a singular one. section 50 (4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso is not retrospective. scheme already finalised will not lapse and has to be completed within the time span provided under proviso. no vested right accrues in favour of authority on commencement of process of preparation of scheme, which cannot be impaired by introducing proviso. section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso uses the term shall be deemed to have lapsed. it does not convey that scheme gets automatically lapsed. 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 revision 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, hauganj, 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 also a very flourishing cloth business. therefore, there was no justification for the 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.