1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2011 Padam Singh, S/o Shri Ganga Singh R/o Village Malla Chopra Post Jeolikot, Tehsil & District Nainital …..…Revisionist Versus Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Padam Singh R/o Village Kasiyalekh Bana Post Office Kasiyalekh Tehsil Dhari, District Nainital ……….Respondent Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate, present for the revisionist. None present for the respondent even after being served personally. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 30.09.2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. 123 of 2009, whereby said court has enhanced the maintenance payable by the revisionist to his wife Smt. Kamla Devi (respondent) from ` 750/- per month to ` 1,200/- per month. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that Padam Singh (revisionist ) got married to Kamla Devi ( respondent) in the year 1984. Two children were born out of the wed-lock. Now both of them (children) are major. Respondent Smt. Kamla Devi (wife of the revisionist) filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., in the year 2003,which was registered as criminal miscellaneous case no. 163 of 2003. The trial court after hearing the parties, decided said case vide order dated 04.09.2004, and directed revisionist Padam Singh to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 750/- per month to his wife. In the year 2009, the wife moved an application under section 127 Cr.P.C., for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, Nainital, after recording evidence, and hearing parties directed the revisionist (husband) to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 1,200/- per month (instead of ` 750/- per month). Hence this revision. 4. The respondent Kamla Devi even after being served personally has not turned up to contest this revision. However, this Court has to examine the legality of the order irrespective of the fact that the respondent is not contesting the revision. 3 5. Shri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is a poor labour, and his earning is ` 2,000/- per month. It is contended that the revisionist is unable to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 1,200/- per month to his wife. The trial court has assessed the income of the revisionist at the rate of ` 80/- per day as wages which he earns as a labourer. 6. Assuming that revisionist earns ` 80/- per day, and further assuming that on every day he gets employment still the monthly income of the husband cannot be said to be more than ` 2,400/- per month. In the above circumstances, considering the economic status of the parties, ends of justice would have met if the amount of ` 750/- per month is enhanced to ` 1,000/- per month . 7. Therefore, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, and after going through the papers on record, this revision is disposed of with the modification in the impugned order that the maintenance amount of ` 750/- per month paya ble by the revisionist to his wife Kamla Devi shall stand enhanced to ` 1,000/- per month in terms of impugned order dated 30.09.2010. With this 4 modification in the impugned order, the revision stands disposed of. (Miscellaneous Application no. 1078 of 2011, also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Parul 14.09.2011