IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OP 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRJUST1C E A.S.PACHHAPURE CR1 M IN AL PETITION j501i BETWEEN: Maya pp a S/o. I\ingappa Naranur, Age: 59, 0cc: Gangmen in Rly Dept., R/o. Rly. Quarters, Dharwad. ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.SHAShIIKALA L. DESAI, ADV.,) AND: Mutt a v v a W/o. Mavappa Naranur, Age: 55, 0cc: Household and Milk Vendor, R 1 0. ‘aragoppa S. B. Tci: Badami. Dist: Bagalkot. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SURESH SHETTEMMANAVAR ADV., FOR JAGADISH PATIL ADV.,) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order passed in Revision Petition No.09/2010 passed 2 the District and Sessions Jude, Bagalkot dated 18/01/2011 and order passed in Crl.Misc. No.268/2007 passed by the JMFC court, Badami dated 26/12/2009 vide in Annexure-D and E. This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following: ORDER Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate confirmed in the revision enhancing the maintenance from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month from the date of the presentation of the petition before the trial court under Section 127 Cr.P.C. 3. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent, the respondent had filed Crl.Misc. No.199/1996 before the trial court and the said application came to be allowed vide order dated 20.12.1999 granting maintenance of Rs.300/- per month. It is thereafter, that due to the rise in the prices of the essential commodities, she moved an “a 3 application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. requesting for enhancement of monthly maintenance from Rs.300/- per month to Rs.3,000/- per month. 4. During the inquiry the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and in their evidence got marked Ex.P.1. The petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked in his evidence. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, enhanced maintenance to Rs.2 1 500/- per month. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred. Cr.R.P. 9/2010. The said revision came to be dismissed on merits vide its order dated 18.01.2011. 7. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the present petition has been filed. 8. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that home-take salary 4 V of the petitioner is Rs.7,215/- and therefore, the enhancement of maintenance to Rs.2,500/- is erroneous and illegal. 10. As could be seen from the documents produced, Ex.P. 1-the salary certificate, the home-take salary of petitioner is Rs.7,215/- and the total salary is Rs.10,316/-. There is deduction towards provident fund, insurance and P.F. advance. This deduction is beneficial to the petitioner. Therefore, the net salary will have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the monthly maintenance. Apart from the salary certificate Ex.P. 1, the respondent has produced Ex.P.1 to P.17. The record of rights of the lands held by the petitioner and his sons. The total land is measuring more than 18 acres. Admittedly, from the portion of the land in possession of the petitioner, he get the income from the agricultural lands also. As he is said to have 1/3rd share in all these properties. Therefore, both courts below came to the conclusion, that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the maintenance to his wife. 11. Taking into con sideration the high prices of the essential commodities in the present days, the maintenance of Rs.300/ which was granted in the year i99, is enhanced to Rs.2.500/ - in the year 2010 by the trial court. Considering the present day money-value, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out an’v such ground to warrant interference. In that view of the matter, the petition is d i s m i s s e d. sd.l Rmsi