Ashoka Dutta Gupta & Anr. Vs. Sujit Dutta Gupta & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3823/99)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3823/99)
Petitioner: Ashoka Dutta Gupta & Anr.
Respondent: Sujit Dutta Gupta & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3823/99)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3823/99)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & D.P.MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 31, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 125, 127 – Maintenance – Magistrate awarding Rs. 1000/- to wife and Rs. 500/- to child – Revision by husband dismissed but amount reduced to Rs. 800/- and Rs. 400/- respectively. Held that reduction was uncalled for. Original orders restored.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 125, 127 – Maintenance – Magistrate awarding Rs. 1000/- to wife and Rs. 500/- to child – Revision by husband dismissed but amount reduced to Rs. 800/- and Rs. 400/- respectively. Held that reduction was uncalled for. Original orders restored.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. First appellant is the wife and second appellant is the child of the first respondent. On behalf of both the appellants, first appellant moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance allowance. The Magistrate before whom the motion was made, granted Rs.1000/- per month for the first appellant and Rs.500/- per month for the second appellant. A revision was filed by the first respondent before the High Court in challenge of the said order. The revision was dismissed by the High Court, but strangely the High Court reduced the amount of monthly allowance from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/- as for the first appellant and from Rs.500/- to Rs.400/- as for the second appellant. The said reduction was made after observing thus :
“Perused the petition and the impugned order and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.”
3. It was stated to be ‘for the ends of justice’ that the destitute wife was deprived of the amount granted by the Magistrate by making a reduction of Rs.200/- per month and for the little child by making a reduction of Rs.100/- per month. Such reduction was absolutely uncalled for. Ends of justice never warranted such reduction. If the Magistrate had granted only the amount now fixed by the High Court, perhaps the ends of justice would have warranted for enhancing the amount to the higher limit.
4. In the result we allow this appeal and modify the impugned order by restoring the amount fixed by the Magistrate in respect of both the appellants.
1. Leave granted.
2. First appellant is the wife and second appellant is the child of the first respondent. On behalf of both the appellants, first appellant moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance allowance. The Magistrate before whom the motion was made, granted Rs.1000/- per month for the first appellant and Rs.500/- per month for the second appellant. A revision was filed by the first respondent before the High Court in challenge of the said order. The revision was dismissed by the High Court, but strangely the High Court reduced the amount of monthly allowance from Rs.1000/- to Rs.800/- as for the first appellant and from Rs.500/- to Rs.400/- as for the second appellant. The said reduction was made after observing thus :
“Perused the petition and the impugned order and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.”
3. It was stated to be ‘for the ends of justice’ that the destitute wife was deprived of the amount granted by the Magistrate by making a reduction of Rs.200/- per month and for the little child by making a reduction of Rs.100/- per month. Such reduction was absolutely uncalled for. Ends of justice never warranted such reduction. If the Magistrate had granted only the amount now fixed by the High Court, perhaps the ends of justice would have warranted for enhancing the amount to the higher limit.
4. In the result we allow this appeal and modify the impugned order by restoring the amount fixed by the Magistrate in respect of both the appellants.
