Dismissed
Mrs. Hannahleena , Leena Paul v. James Herbert Paul
Telangana HCCRLRC/949/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.949 OF 2011
DATED:12.07.2011
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 03.12.2010, in M.P.No.33 of 2009 in M.C.No.156 of 1995 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C., claiming Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses, was dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner herein. None appears for the respondent. Perused the records.
3. Admittedly, M.C.No.156 of 1995 filed by the petitioner-wife against the respondent was dismissed insofar as her claim for maintenance is concerned and the claim for maintenance of the children alone was granted. It is not disputed that the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order is also dismissed. The present application is filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C., claiming Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the subsequent change in the circumstances resulting in hospitalization of the petitioner and incurring expenditure for her treatment, the present application is filed confining the claim to the medical expenses actually
incurred.
5. Section 127 Cr.P.C. contemplates alteration in allowance and states that on proof of change in the circumstances of any person, receiving, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a monthly allowance for the maintenance, or interim maintenance, the learned Magistrate may make such alteration as he thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance, as the case may be.
6. A plain reading of the legal position would disclose that it is only a person, in whose favour an order granting maintenance or interim maintenance was ordered earlier, can seek modification of the said order or alteration in the allowance on proof of change of the circumstances. Petitioner, admittedly, was not granted any maintenance or interim maintenance earlier. The question of seeking alteration in the quantum of allowance on proof of change of circumstances under Section 127 Cr.P.C., does not therefore arise. Even if there has been any change in the circumstances and the petitioner has incurred certain expenditure, it includes certain medical expenditure, still she not having been granted any maintenance or interim maintenance earlier under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the question of altering such allowance under Section 127 Cr.P.C., does not arise. The application filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is therefore misconceived. Petitioner is however at liberty to avail other remedies, if any,
available under law regarding her claim.
7. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the liberty as stated above.
_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J
12th July, 2011. Tsy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for alteration of maintenance allowance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the petitioner was not previously granted maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Petitioner-wife
Respondent
G.V.Seethapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court