1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2645/2008 Tukaram Dnyanu Khot........Petitioner V/s Sau.Laxmi Tukaram Khot and others........Respondents ............. Mr.S.D.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.V.Gajre, APP for the State. ............. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. Dated :- 06th May, 2009 PC :- 1 The Petitioner/husband has taken an exception to the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (herein after to be referred as “the said Code”) directing the Petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- each to his wife and the minor daughter. In the year 1992, the wife and daughter had filed an application under Section 125 of the said Code which was allowed on 16.04.1994. By the said order, the Petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.200/- to the wife and monthly maintenance of Rs.75/- to the daughter. In December, 2000, an application under Section 127 of the said Code was filed by the wife and the daughter on which the impugned order has been passed. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that enhancement granted by the learned Magistrate is exorbitant considering the fact that in the year 1994 total monthly maintenance of Rs.275/- was fixed. He submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner was earning salary of Rs.12,000/- or more per month. He submitted that there was no justification for granting total maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. Earlier order was passed in the year 1994 on an application filed in the year 1992. While deciding the subsequent 2 application under Section 127 of the said Code, the learned Magistrate relied upon the certificate at Exhibit-20 showing that the Petitioner received salary of Rs.12,134.17 for February, 2004. The learned Magistrate also referred to the 7/12 extracts on record showing that the father of Petitioner was holding the agricultural land having area of 05 acres and various crops were being taken on the said land. The learned Magistrate also noted that there has been a large scale increase in the prices of the essential commodities after 1994 which has brought about a drastic change in the circumstances. The learned Magistrate also noted that the daughter was taking education in 10th standard. 4 The learned Sessions Judge has also relied upon the same certificate at Exhibit- 20. The submission made on behalf of the Petitioner before the Sessions Court was that the Petitioner is required to look after his brothers and their families. The said submission was rejected by the Sessions Court. 5 Considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate was justified in fixing total monthly maintenance at Rs.3,000/-. It is pertinent to note that though the application under Section 127 of the said Code was made by the wife and the daughter in the year 2000, the learned Judge has made the maintenance payable at the enhanced rate from 16th March 2006. Thus, the maintenance amount fixed is very reasonable and no interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, Writ Petition is rejected. However, time is granted to the Petitioner for two months to pay arrears upto 30th April, 2009. JUDGE kps