HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.781 of 2011 and Crl.M.P.No.1421 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.781 of 2011 and CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.911 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both these revisions can be disposed of by this common order. The petitioner in both these revisions is the husband. The second respondent is admittedly his wife and the third respondent is their minor daughter. 2. Earlier the wife for herself and her minor daughter filed a maintenance case i.e. M.C.No.55 of 2007 under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the husband in the Court of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cybderabad at L.B.Nagar on the plea that the husband neglected both of them. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 03.04.2008 allowed that Maintenance Case and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month each to the wife and his daughter. It is stated that the said order has become final. 3. Subsequently the wife for herself and the minor daughter of the parties filed Crl.M.P.No.54 of 2010 seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs.3,500/- per month to each of them on the plea that the cost of living has increased since 3.4.2008 and that her minor daughter is also now going to school and studying first class. This petition was taken up by the Family Court of Ranga Reddy District. It is seen from the order of the Family Court that the husband remained ex parte. After considering the evidence of the wife the Family Court by its order dated 27.08.2010 allowed that petition in part and enhanced the maintenance by Rs.2,000/- each to the wife and the daughter. In other words, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance to Rs.3,000/- from Rs.1,000/- to each of them. Challenging that order the husband has filed Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011. Notice was ordered in this revision at the stage of admission and also a conditional interim stay was granted on 28.03.2011. Subsequently the wife and her daughter entered appearance and filed Crl.M.P.No.1421 of 2011 to vacate the interim stay granted. 4. The material papers in the other revision i.e. Crl.R.C.No.911 of 2011 would show that after the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance, the wife and her minor daughter filed petition i.e. M.P.No.707 of 2010 in the Family Court for its enforcement. The Family Court by its order dated 10.03.2011 allowed that petition and issued an attachment warrant for recovery of the maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month from the salary of the husband. As this Court granted interim stay on 28.03.2011 subject to the husband deposing 50% of the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court on 28.03.2011, the husband again filed Crl.R.C.No.911 of 2011 questioning the aforesaid order dated 10.03.2011 of the Family Court on the plea that it is illegal. The husband’s version is that the Family Court hastily passed the above enforcement order dated 10.03.2011 without waiting for the result of the Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011 and the interim stay granted in it and therefore that enforcement order should be set aside. 5. Thus the point that arises for determination in Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011 is whether the enhancement granted by the Family Court is proper or does it suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The other revision will be taken up after deciding this Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011. 6. The learned counsel for the husband argued that the husband’s mother was sick and therefore he could not attend the Court and the Family Court was therefore not justified in passing an ex parte order against him enhancing the maintenance. The other argument advanced on behalf of the husband is that he is getting only a net pay of Rs.9,294/- and if he is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- out of it towards the maintenance of the wife and daughter it will be difficult for him to maintain himself and his sickly mother and therefore the impugned order should be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the wife and her minor daughter on the other hand argued that the husband has got sufficient means and that he deliberately avoided to appear before the Family Court and therefore there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the light of the above contentions the point is now taken up. 8. The respective contentions of the parties have already been set out supra. Regarding the means of the husband and the reasonableness of the enhancement, it may be noted that the impugned order of the Family Court reads that it concluded that the husband was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a Junior Assistant in a State Government office and in fact this was the plea of the wife and it was accepted by the Family Court. The grounds of the revision would show that this conclusion of the Family Court regarding the total salary/earnings of the husband has not been challenged. The plea of the husband is that he was getting a net pay of Rs.9,294/-. He did not explain what were the deductions made from his salary and whether the said deductions were of a voluntary nature or of a compulsory nature. In such circumstances the enhancement granted by the Family Court having regard to the total earnings of the husband and the present day cost of living cannot be said to be unreasonable having regard to his relationship with the respondents 2 and 3 and also the fact that the third respondent is attending school notwithstanding the fact that his mother is a sickly lady as he has to maintain all the three of them and provide them a reasonably decent living within his means. Thus the contention of the husband based upon his means cannot be accepted. 9. Then coming to the plea of the husband that the Family Court unjustifiably has set him ex parte, the same cannot also be accepted for this reason. His only plea is that he could not attend the Court in the petition for enhancement because of his mother’s ill-health. In the grounds of revision nothing is mentioned as to what is the ill-health of his mother and how it prevented him from attending the Court and he took only a bald plea in that behalf. In- fact, the husband could have as well moved the Family Court for setting aside the impugned order which is an ex parte order but he did not do so and instead filed this revision belatedly. It may also be noted that all said and done respondents 2 and 3 are admittedly his wife and minor daughter whom he has to maintain. In these circumstances, the second contention cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons it follows that there is no ground to interefere with the impugned order granting enhancement of maintenance. Crl.M.P.No.1421 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.1167 of 2011 in Crl.R.C.781 of 2011 is allowed and the stay granted is vacated. 10. The other revision i.e. Crl.R.C.No.911 of 2011 is now taken up. So far as this revision is concerned, it may be noted that the interim stay in Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011 was granted on 28.03.2011. The Family Court passed the enforcement order in question on 10.03.2011 i.e. roughly seventeen days before the stay was granted. In other words it follows that the Family Court cannot be faulted for enforcing the maintenance order as there was no stay on the date of the said order. Hence the husband cannot have any grievance against the enforcement order in question as mere filing of a revision or appeal does not operate as stay of the impugned order. It may also be noted that since the case of the husband in revision i.e. Crl.R.C.No.781 of 2011 has been rejected it follows that there are no merits in this Crl.R.C.No.911 of 2011 also. 11. Accordingly, both these revisions are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 6th June, 2011 Vjl/CVRK