1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 387 OF 2009 Ashok Ananda Kadam Versus Sau. Anita Ashok Kadam *** Mr. K. S. Bhore, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. B. R. Sontakke Patil, Advocate for the Respondent/ Sole. *** 1. The wife claimed maintenance against husband. The petition was initially allowed, granting allowance of Rs.500/- per month by the learned J.M.F.C., Tuljapur by order dated 7th July, 2001. Same was subjected before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Revision No.7 of 2003. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on analysing the evidence and status of the parties, did not interfere with the order of allowance of maintenance of rs.500/-, by the order dated 16th July, 2004. This order is now under challenge. 2. The wife subsequently moved learned J.M.F.C., Tuljapur by Criminal Application No.63 of 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2008 in terms of section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhanced maintenance and by order dated 3rd December, 2008 the learned J.M.F.C., Tuljapur has enhanced the allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- per month with costs of litigation at Rs.300/-. This order is also subject of challenge in the same proceeding before this Court. 3. The challenge to the grant of maintenance at Rs.500/- per month, by virtue of the order referred above, could not be said to be erroneous or illegal as the wife Anita has established that the husband was serving at Civil Hospital, Solapur with monthly earning of Rs.7,000/-. The wife was expected to reside in conformity to the status of her husband and consequently the award of Rs.500/-. The contention that the marital status itself is in clouds, is not open to be agitated as it has reached finality in proceedings. I do not see any merit in the contention of the husband about his marital status with the wife. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 4. Then comes the Criminal Application No.63 of 2008 moved by the wife against the husband in terms of section 127 Cr.P.C. The order of allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month was dated 7th July, 2001. Thereafter, there was escalation in the prices and equally the husband also got enhancement in his monthly remuneration and his salary has been increased time to time. Though the husband has claimed that there was no such enhancement or increase, however, record indicate that at-least in the year 2001 he was having a salary of Rs.5,189/-, though he claim having take home salary Rs.1,671/-. If the husband has raised loans, created other obligations, minimising his take home salary, the wife cannot be put to any starvation or difficulties to claim maintenance. 5. The medical expenses required to be met to the wife also needs consideration, though she has not produced such evidence before the learned J.M.F.C. 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. The husband contended, he is already married person and he has to maintain his three children from earlier wife. However, this fact is not established. Considering the enhancement in the income of the husband, the learned J.M.F.C., in the fact situation, was justified in enhancing the maintenance allowance from Rs.500/- to Rs.1,500/- by order dated 3rd December, 2008. I do not see any reason to interfere. The application, consequently, is rejected. 6. It is clarified, the observations herein about the status of the wife, will not come in the way of husband to challenge her status as such. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:02/09/2009. ans/387