Dhirendra Mishra, J.
1. By this criminal revision the applicant has impugned the order dated 15-4-2002 passed in Criminal Case No. 34/02 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mahasamund has allowed the application preferred by the non-applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and directed the applicant to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month to the non-applicant from the date of filing of the application.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the non-applicant's application for maintenance was allowed and the High Court vide order dated 7-11-1984 passed in Criminal Revision No. 25/83 directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. Her application under Section 127 of the Code was further allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund vide order dated 8-9-1997 passed in Criminal Case No. 106/90 and the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 400/- per month. Non-applicant further moved an application under Section 127 of the Code before the Judicial Magistrate on 20-9-2001 for enhancement of the maintenance amount and the same was also allowed by the impugned order and the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1,000/-.
3. The only ground urged by the applicant is that the maintenance was granted to the non-applicant before 30-5-1998 when the amendment in Section 125 of the Code came into force and ceiling of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 500/-was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. Amended provisions are applicable only in the proceedings which are pending after 30-5-1998 and in relation to the orders which have been passed after 30-5-1998 and for the purposes of orders passed under the un-amended Section 125 of the Code maximum ceiling of Rs. 500/-per month maintenance would apply. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of Ramfool Moolchand Mina v. Smt. Jagrati Ramfool Mina reported in 2001 (2) M.P.H.T. 234 : 2001 (1) M.P.L.J. 304.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicant argued that Section 127 of the Code makes a provision for alteration in allowance granted as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code due to change in circumstances and the Magistrate considering the change in circumstances can direct the husband to pay maintenance at the enhanced rate, if the wife establishes by adducing evidence about the change in circumstances. In the present case a meager sum of Rs. 400/- was awarded in the year 1997 when salary of the applicant was only Rs. 3,500/-, however, considering that cost of living had increased since then and the salary of the applicant was also increased to Rs. 8,500/-, the amount of maintenance has been increased. On the date of deciding this application the maximum limit of maintenance amount under Section 125 of the Code was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- and, therefore, there was no impediment before learned Magistrate in enhancing the amount of maintenance.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. The short question to be considered in this criminal revision is whether amount of maintenance awarded under un-amended provisions of Section 125 of the Code before 30-5-1998 could be subsequently enhanced on a petition filed by the applicant under Section 127 of the Code after coming into force of the amended provisions of the Code?
7. The above question is to be answered in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons formulated by the Stale of Madhya Pradesh for amending the provisions of Section 125 of the Code and enhancing the amount of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 3000/- by the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1997 (No. 10 of 1998). The Statement of Objects and Reasons arc as under:
Statement of Objects and Reasons.--According to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the maintenance allowance of Wives, Children or Parents is payable at such monthly rate not exceeding 500/- rupees. Since the existing amount of maintenance allowance has become insufficient in the present day circumstances, it has been considered necessary to enhance the same upto 3000/- rupees.
8. From bare reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons it is clear that the State considering the existence of maintenance allowance of Rs. 500/- p.m. insufficient in the present circumstances, it has been considered necessary to enhance the same and accordingly, Section 125 of the Code was amended and ceiling of Rs. 500/- was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. It is not in dispute that the application under Section 127 of the Code for enhancement was filed by non-applicant Wife after the amended provision came into force, which confers power upon the Judicial Magistrate to award maintenance up to Rs. 3000/- per month. It is true that the amendment is applicable prospectively, i.e., w.e.f. 30-5-1998 when it was first published in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary), however, the same would be applicable to all the petitions pending under Section 125 or Section 127 of the Code, as the case may be.
9. In the matter of Ramfool Moolchand Mina (supra), also applicant had filed the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code before coming into force of the amended provisions and the same was decided by the Magistrate subsequently and in these circumstances it was held in Paras 17 and 18 that the amendment is intended to be applicable to the pending proceedings.
10. In the present case, since the petition for enhancement was filed on 20-9-2001, i.e., after coming into force of the amended provisions, the same would be governed by the amended Act and thus, there is no force in the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant that the amount of maintenance granted under un-amended provisions of Section 125 of the Code cannot be subsequently enhanced as per the amended provision.
11. Since no other argument was advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant, the instant petition being without any substance deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed
