RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.213 of 2007 Nanak Chand ………. Revisionist Versus Smt. Beena & another ..…. Respondents Dated: August 25, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the revisionist, Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.1 and Sri P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.2. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, whereby the quantum of maintenance awarded to Smt. Beena w/o Nanak Chand was enhanced from Rs.400/- to the tune of Rs.6,000/-. Admittedly, Smt. Beena is the wife of revisionist-Nanak Chand. By order dated 10.8.1987, she was awarded maintenance of Rs.150/- per month u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. In the year 1999, she moved an application u/s 127 of the Code for enhancement of the same and the maintenance amount was altered to the tune of Rs.400/-. With the passage of time and the hike in the prices for daily living, she again moved an application, which was registered as a case no.357 of 2005. This was adjudicated by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and the amount of maintenance was enhanced from Rs.400/- to Rs.6,000/-. Learned counsel on behalf of the revisionist has urged that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. to alter the amount of maintenance, which has already been enhanced. This is quite 2 an unsustainable argument, inasmuch as, the provision under Section 127 Cr.P.C. of the Code does not envisage such an analogy, as has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist. It is but natural that inflation takes place with the passage of time, prices are shoot up. When such a situation is faced by the lady living alone, she cannot maintain herself with the meager amount of Rs.400/- per month, so the same was altered on dated 1.10.2001 by the competent court. The revisionist was employed in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and it is documentarily proved that in the month of June, 2006, he used to get Rs.32,000/- per month as gross salary. In order to save himself from making the payment to his wife-Smt. Beena, if he kept on allowing deductions to the tune of more than Rs.10,000/-, then he did so to increase his savings and to receive them later. For the assessment of payment of the maintenance to his wife, his gross salary would be taken into account and the learned Principal Judge has done so. Although, the revisionist has been retired from the ONGC but the authentic paper, issued by ONGC itself, shows that he has received more than Rs.22.00 lacs at the time of his superannuation. It also makes manifest that the issue related to his pension and retirement benefit scheme has been settled. So the contention of leaned counsel for the revisionist that in ONGC, there is no provision of payment of pension to the revisionist, is not true. On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality or impropriety or any material irregularity committed by the Judge of the Family Court in enhancing the quantum of maintenance from Rs.400/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. In the present scenario, even this amount of Rs.6,000/- is not sufficient for a lady to maintain herself. In this meager amount, she will hardly be able to 3 keep her existence alive, particularly in circumstances when she is constrained to run in the courts, even to get this much amount from her husband –Nanak Chand. For the reasons as aforesaid, the revision is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 15.11.2007 passed by this Court is vacated. A copy of this order along with the lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 25.08.2011 Rajeev Dang