1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Mangilal V/s. Smt. Amrawati S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1178/2010 S.B. Criminal Revision Under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Ajay Raj Tantia for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge while accepting the respondent's application for enhancement of the maintenance, has rejected the petitioner's application for ending the maintenance being provided by the petitioner to the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-wife had filed an application for increasing the maintenance amount. On the other hand, the petitioner had filed an application for ending the maintenance. The respondent wife had filed the application for increasing the maintenance amount of Rs.800/- per month on the ground 2 that the prices in the country had increased immensely. The petitioner had filed the application for ending the maintenance amount on the ground that he had retired from the private service. Thus, he could no longer afford to maintain the respondent. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 19.10.2010, the learned trial Court had increased the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,200/- per month, and dismissed the petitioner's application for ending the maintenance. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that according to the petitioner, the respondent-wife is earning Rs.200 to Rs.300/- per day from manufacturing of Bidi, whereas the petitioner has retired from a private service. Thus, he is unable to maintain her. Thus, he has requested that the maintenance, being provided by him, should be ended. According to the counsel, considering the fact that the petitioner is now unemployed, the learned Judge has erred in increasing the maintenance amount from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,200/- per month. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 3 A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the petitioner was not able to prove the fact that the respondent was earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day from manufacturing Bidi. Moreover, the petitioner in his cross-examination had admitted that he had received Rs.3,37,337/- on 17.12.2008 from the Toshniwal Factory as provident fund, and had further received Rs.95,933/- as gratuity. Thus, at the time of his retirement, he had received about Rs.4,30,000/-. The learned Judge has also noticed that on the said date, the petitioner would have received Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month as interest. In these facts and circumstances, the learned Judge was certainly justified in increasing the maintenance amount of the respondent from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,200/-. After all, in the last two years, there has been a price rise in the country; the respondent, who happens to be unemployed, has to equally face the inflation. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Thus, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-