/1/ cra1035-10.Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1035 of 2010 Shri Narayans/o Tukaram Navghare, -Versus.- Sau. Geetabai w/o Narayan Navghare and others. Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Mr. V.S. Shingane, counsel for petitioner. None for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. B.S. Lonare, APP for respondent No.5. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATE : 18 th January, 2011. 1. By the present application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, thereby dismissing the revision application filed by the applicant. The 2. The applicant is the husband. Respondent no.1 is the wife and respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the daughters of the couple. The respondent no.1- /2/ cra1035-10.Judgment wife filed proceedings for maintenance against the applicant. It seems that in the application i.e. Criminal Application No. 267/1995 the learned Magistrate passed the order on 30.10.1996. Thereafter the respondent nos. 1 to 4 filed application No. 92/2000 (the first application for enhancement in the maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 550/- for applicant no. 2 and Rs. 250/- each for applicant nos. 2 to 4.) It seems that the learned lower court passed the order thereby granting maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondents then prayed for enhancement in the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.1500/- each. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 26.6.2009 allowed the application partly. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhani allowed the application in respect of enhancement in the maintenance amount for respondent no.1 and respondent no. 4 to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of filing of the /3/ cra1035-10.Judgment application. The applicant husband being aggrieved by the said order filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara. The learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision maintaining the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Revisional Court, the applicant is before this court. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shingane for the applicant-husband vehemently submitted that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Revisional Court erred in not appreciating the facts brought on record in its proper perspective. Mr. Shingane further submitted that the learned Magistrate while allowing the application for enhancement of maintenance has only on assumption and presumption held that the applicant is drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He submitted that there was no document on record to show that the applicant was drawing Rs.10,000/- salary. Only on the submission of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, the /4/ cra1035-10.Judgment learned Magistrate allowed the application. Mr. Shingane further submitted that the Revisional court failed to see that the amount awarded for the enhanced maintenance is exorbitant. Mr. Shingane therefore prayed for allowing the application. 4. Mr. Lonare, learned Assistant Police Prosecutor appears for respondent no. 5-State. None appears though served for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has considered that the applicant in his evidence admitted that he is drawing Rs.10,000/- salary. The applicant also admitted in his oral evidence that respondent no. 2 i.e. Jyotsna Navghare and respondent no. 3 i.e. Chanda Navghare are married daughters and he has not extended any financial help to the applicant no. 1 i.e. Respondent no. 1 herein in the marriage expenses. Respondent nos. 2 & 4 were prosecuting their studies. The learned Magistrate then observe that as the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are the married /5/ cra1035-10.Judgment daughters, the applicant was not liable too bear any financial burden in respect of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The learned Magistrate then observed that the salary certificate of the applicant was placed on record and it shows that the applicant was drawing Rs.9,575/- per month salary and was receiving the hand taken amount of Rs.5990/-. The leaned Magistrate then observed that the salary certificate was of the year 2004 and during the passage of time of five years, the applicant was entitled for the 6th pay Commission entitlement in his salary amount. The Magistrate further observed that the respondent no. 1 is in advanced age and she has to bear the responsibility of respondent no.4. As respondent no. 4 is prosecuting her studies, respondent no. 1 needs a good amount of money for her education and maintenance. Considering these facts, learned Magistrate granted enhanced maintenance @ Rs. 1000/- per month for respondent nos. 1 & 4 from the date of filing of the application. The Revisional /6/ cra1035-10.Judgment Court, considered the findings of the learned Magistrate and also observation that there is increase in the prices from year 2004 to year 2009 i.e. when the application for enhancement was filed. The learned Revisional Court on considering all these aspects had no reason to show any indulgence in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed. 5. On considering the orders passed by the learned Magistrate dated 26.6.2009 and order passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 5.5.2010, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate has considered the aspect of the earning of the applicant as well as the need of respondents. The learned Magistrate found that as the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are married daughters, they are not entitled for any maintenance amount. Learned Magistrate also found that the applicant is drawing salary @ Rs.10,000/- per month. The applicant himself has admitted in his oral evidence that he is /7/ cra1035-10.Judgment drawing salary @ Rs.10,000/-. The applicant in view of the marriage of his two daughters is to bear the maintenance for respondent nos. 1 and 4 only. One cannot ignore the fact that there is rise in the prices from 2004 to 2009 and also the applicant is a salaried employee and as such there must be rise in his salary also. Though the learned advocate Mr. Shingane vehemently submitted that the findings arrived at by the learned Magistrate are on the presumption and assumption, I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the reasons that the applicant himself has admitted the fact of drawing salary @ Rs.10,000/- in his oral evidence. Apart from that even the copy of the pass book placed on record by the applicant shows that the applicant is receiving salary @ Rs. 11000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 4 is prosecuting her education. In view of the fact that the respondent no.1 is a lady who is to bear the responsibility of prosecuting the education of her /8/ cra1035-10.Judgment daughter and also maintain herself and her daughter, the enhanced amount of maintenance @ Rs. 1600/- each from the date of filing the application is just, legal and proper. I see no reason to show any interference in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the order passed by the learned Revisional Court in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected. JUDGE Hirekhan