IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1127 of 2009 Prabhawati Devi, wife of Sri Ramayan Sharma, permanent resident of Bijauli, P.S.-Rajpur, District- Buxar, at present resident of Viratnagar, Buxar, West of Government Buniyadi School, Buxar, P.S.-Buxar Town, Ward No.6, District- Buxar. Versus Janateshwar Sharma, son of Sri Ramayan Sharma, presently resident of Viratnagar, Buxar, West of Government Buniyadi School, Buxar, P.S.-Buxar Town, District- Buxar. ----------- 4. 19.07.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar in Maintenance Case No.9 (M)/2006 by which the petitioner has only been granted Rs.700/-per month as maintenance from her son, opposite party. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party even after service of notice. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party namely, Janateshwar Sharma is the only son of the petitioner. He works as Contractor and he used to take the contract work. He further submits that the income of the opposite party has not been assessed properly. Monthly income of the opposite party is Rs.15000/-per month. P.W.2 is the sister of petitioner, who has stated that the Opposite party earned Rs.15000/-. P.W. 3 Lalita Devi is the sister in law of the petitioner, who has stated that opposite party has 2 sufficient means for maintenance of the petitioner. O. P.W. I is the brother in law (Sala) of the opposite party. He has also said that the opposite party is only son of his parents. In the cross examination, he has stated that the opposite party has purchased land in favour of his sister (the wife of the opposite party) at Naya Bazar, Buxar. The opposite party lives in the house constructed at the bank of the canal which had been purchased by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the maintenance amount is too meagre for her maintenance. As such, the amount of maintenance should be enhanced so that the petitioner could survive. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It further appears that the amount of maintenance is too meagre for the subsistence of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, the amount of maintenance is enhanced to a sum of Rs.1200/-per month. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, this petition stands disposed of. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)