1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Smt. Manju Bharati & ors. Vs. Shri Rajesh Giri SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1115/2005. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 3rd September, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Virendra Singh Gurjar for the petitioners. Mr. Devendra Chauhan for the respondent. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 30.8.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur for enhancement of the amount of maintenance and also for grant of maintenance from the date of filing of the application instead of date of passing of the order. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner submitted an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur on 13.12.2000 claiming maintenance for minor children petitioners no.2 and 3. In the application it was averred that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by respondent-husband 2 and by her in-laws. An FIR was also lodged by the petitioner at Mahila Police Station, Gandhi Nagar for demand of dowry and harassment. FIR No.51/1999 for the offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC was registered at police station. In relation to income of the non-petitioner it was averred that the non-petitioner was receiving monthly salary @ Rs.12,000/- per month and was also having an income from other sources. A prayer was made for grant of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month per child. In reply to the application it was stated that the petitioner was never subjected to any cruelty and false allegations have been levelled against him and his family members. It was also stated that the petitioner at her own left the house. In order to prove the allegations, the petitioner examined herself and also examined PW-2 Bhanu Prakash Goswami, the father of the petitioner. The respondent examined himself and his father Shanker Prasad. The learned Judge, Family Court awarded maintenance to the minor daughter Aditi and son Ashish @ Rs.1,000/- each vide order dated 30.8.2005 from the date of the order. Hence, this revision petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge, Family Court has not properly taken into consideration this aspect of the matter that now more money is required for the maintenance of minors as they are now studying in schools and looking to the present time maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- each to the minors is at the lower side. It is also contended that the monthly salary of the non-petitioner is 3 Rs.16,608/- per month as the non-petitioner is Circle Inspector in the police department in the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in this regard the pay slip of the non-petitioner for the month of January, 2008. On the other hand, it has been contended that the petitioner is a Teacher Gr.III and his earning is Rs.9,000/- per month, therefore, she is competent enough to maintain herself and minors. It is also contended that the learned Judge, Family Court has properly granted maintenance to the minor children Aditi and Ashish, therefore, no case is made out for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. It is also contended that it is the discretion of the court to pass order either from the date of application or from the date of the order. In the instant case, the learned Judge, Family Court has correctly exercised the discretion in awarding maintenance from the date of the judgment, therefore, the same is not required to be disturbed under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court and also carefully perused the statements of witnesses recorded in this case. It is to be seen that the learned Judge, Family Court, considering the evidence, reached to the conclusion that the minors were entitled to receive maintenance amount from the non- petitioner who is father of petitioners no.2 and 3. It also appears 4 that the non-petitioner is Circle Inspector in police department and in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. It cannot be disputed that it is the duty of the parents to maintain their children and in the instant case each of the minor were granted maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of order. It also cannot be disputed that in the present time looking to the status of the family and income of the father of minors, the maintenance amount was required to be granted. The learned Judge, Family Court has granted maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the children in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be at the lower side. This amount needs to be enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per month to each of the children from the date of passing of the order. As regards, not awarding maintenance amount from the date of filing of the application is concerned, it is suffice to say that the learned Judge, Family Court has properly exercised its discretion in granting maintenance amount in the present matter from the date of the order. I do not see a reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Judge, Family Court in awarding maintenance amount from the date of order. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 30.8.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur is modified to the extent that instead of the amount of maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month as awarded by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur, the minor children Aditi Giri and Ashish Giri shall be 5 entitled to amount of maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of order. (S.P. PATHAK,J)