IGNORED QUERY
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 23 April 2010
This query is : Resolved
Sir my client was ordered to pay Rs 300/- pm to wife, at the time when the maximum maintenance amount was up to Rs 500/-(before the new amendment in Cr.P.C.). Now the new amendment has come in to effect, having maintenance limit up to Rs 5000/- according to Uttarakhand's stete amendment. My client's wife has applied to court for enhancement for Rs 2000/-.
Sir I am of the opinion that, because maintenance awarded earlier was according to old provision which might be maximum Rs 500/-. New amendment should not be applied here, having no specific clause in amendment Act. Now court can enhance only up to Rs 500.
Am I wrong or right ? please suggest. Sir if I am right please suggest the law or citation if any, that I may satisfy to court.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 23 April 2010
No are mistaken in this matter. Law of maintenance has changed and when she is demanding to enhance the already awarded amount of Rs. 300/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month is legal and justified. As fresh cause of action accrues in favour of wife every month so she may claim it every month and no need to say, she is also entitled to invoke latest provisions of law in her favour so nothing is illegal in her demand. Otherwise also it is against natural justice that new litigants are entitled for Rs. 5,000/- per month whereas she being old litigant is entitled only for Rs. 500/- per month.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 23 April 2010
Sorry Sir! I am confused it means if 1 years punishment was provided for ..... offence in 2000, and offence is commited in 2000. Mean while new amendment make it punishable with 7 years. Accused should be punished with 7 years.?
Please Sir correct me. I agree with you as per the social justice. But don't you think that she should file fresh application under 125, Or provision must be amended on this point.
Thanks for quick help.
Suryanarayana Tangirala
(Expert) 24 April 2010
Mr.Arvind one should be punished for same offence again don't forget it
Suryanarayana Tangirala
(Expert) 24 April 2010
sorry in my earlier reply mistake rolled No one should be punished twice for same offence.
Anish goyal
(Expert) 24 April 2010
Arvind brother read the following case on retrospective operation of law. I think it will be help full to you. Do reply me whether it was help full.
G. sekar vs. Getha scc 2009 (6) 99
Anish goyal
(Expert) 24 April 2010
Although my case law is not on this point. But surely help you to understand the law on the point.
With regard to your question i agree with Raj sir that that enhancing the maintenance according to the change law will not be giving the retrospective operation to the amendment. As right to claim occurs to the wife time to time. It is not a vested right. But vest in wife from time to time.
