IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 146 OF 2006 Hari Ram S/o Sri Jhari Ram, R/o village Baniyawala, P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. ……… Revisionist Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand 2.Smt. Ranjeeta W/o Sri Hari Ram R/o village Bangakhala, P.O. Tunwala, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun, 3.Master Nikhil (Minor), S/o Sri Hari Ram, R/o village Bangakhala, P.O. Tunwala, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun, Through her mother Smt. Ranjeeta. .……….Respondents Dated: October 17 , 2008 Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1, None for the respondents. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.07.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in case no. 37 of 2005 Smt. Ranjeeta and another vs. Sri Hari Ram, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has partly allowed the petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent Smt. Ranjeeta and enhanced the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month each to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 instead of Rs. 500/-per month each to them from the date of order i.e. from 21.07.2006. 2. None is present on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Heard Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and 2 Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no.2-Smt. Ranjeeta filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance with the averments that in the case no. 104/2000 Smt. Ranjeeta vs. Hari Ram filed by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 19.12.2000 the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to each of the respondent no. 2-Smt. Ranjeeta and respondent no.3-Master Nikhil as maintenance. It is submitted that the respondent no.3-Master Nikhil has become 5 years’ old and is studying at Prayagraj Academy, Bangakhala, Dehradun. It is further averted that the amount of maintenance earlier awarded is inadequate, as a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is needed in educating the son-Master Nikhil and it is difficult to maintain and educate him for such a meager amount. Further the prices of the essential commodities have been hiked up therefore, maintenance and education can not be possible in the meager amount awarded earlier in maintenance case. To establish the income of the revisionist the petitioner filed the salary certificate of the revisionist, which indicate that after all deductions he receives a net sum of Rs. 4,771/- per month. In the prevailing circumstances and keeping in view the needs of the respondent no.2 & 3, according to their present requirements, the amount of maintenance may be enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month each. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. The revisionist has conceded that maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month each to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 was awarded in the previous proceedings and he is making payment accordingly. It is stated that his monthly income is Rs. 4,314/- per month from his salary and from this income he is paying maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per 3 month each to the respondent nos. 2 & 3. Moreover, besides his own expenditure he has to pay expenses for his ailing father. He prayed that in accordance to his income the maintenance is adequate and is based upon exact ratio. In support of their version, both the parties filed their affidavits before the trial court. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the trial court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2006 allowed the application of the wife-respondent no.2 and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- per month each for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 instead of Rs. 500/-per month to each of them (in total Rs. 2,000/- per month) from the date of the order. Aggrieved with this order this revision has been filed by the husband-revisionist. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that although the trial court has made reference that the father of the revisionist is suffering from ailments and the revisionist has to bear the costs on his fathers’ treatment, but the trial court has ignored this significant aspect. It is further argued that the respondent no.2 failed to prove her version and she did not produce any documentary evidence. Lastly it is submitted that there is no major change in the circumstances in between the year 2000 and the year 2005. But from perusal of the order impugned and the pleadings of the parties and on the basis of the evidence available on the record it is clear that the respondent no.3 Master Nikhil is admitted in a School for his education. The prices of essential commodities have been increased to its double at present in comparison to the year 2000. The revisionist has the whole liability to look after his son and wife and to maintain them. The trial court has fully considered the petition as also the written objection of the revisionist while passing the order impugned. But keeping in view that the revisionist has other liabilities towards his parents, therefore the amount of maintenance would have been 4 awarded, taking into account of the income and the liabilities of the revisionist, to its higher side. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 (Smt. Ranjeeta and Master Nikhil) each are found entitled to receive maintenance to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month (in all Rs. 1,600/- per month) instead of Rs. 1,000/- per month each as enhanced by the court below. To this extent the impugned judgment and order warrants interference at this stage. Accordingly, the amount of maintenance is reduced to the tune of Rs. 800/- per month to each of the respondent nos. 2 & 3 from Rs. 1,000/- per month each, which will be paid from the date of impugned order i.e. from 21.07.2006. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is partly allowed. The revisionist is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month each to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 (in total Rs. 1,600/- per month) as maintenance from the date of impugned order i.e. from 21.07.2006 6. Interim order dated 23.08.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.10.2008 NCM