IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.202 of 2011 1- Smt. Leela Devi W/o Shri Harish Chandra 2- Kumari Kavita D/o Harish Chandra. R/o Khupi Gethiya, Police Station Bhowali, District Nainital, Tallital Nainital. ….…..Revisionists Versus Harish Chandra S/o Nathu Ram R/o Gethiya Sanitorium, at present Alookhet, District Nainital, Tallital, Nainital. ……Respondent Mr. P.S. Bohara, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate, present for the respondent. With Criminal Revision No.138 of 2011 Harish Chandra S/o Nathu Ram R/o Gethiya Sanitorium, at present Alookhet, District Nainital, Tallital, Nainital. ….…..Revisionist Versus Smt. Leela Devi W/o Harish Chandra R/o Village Khupi Gethiya Thana Bhowali Tehsil & District Nainital. ……Respondent Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. 2) Both these revisions are directed against the same order dated 13th of May, 2011, passed by Judge Family Court, Nainital, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 39 of 2010, whereby said court has enhanced the amount of maintenance from ` 350/- payable to the wife (Leela Devi) to ` 2500/- per month, by the husband (Harish Chandra). In the revision No. 202 of 2011, wife Smt. Leela Devi has sought further enhancement and Km. Kavita (daughter) has challenged rejection of her claim of enhancement. On the other hand in criminal revision No. 138 of 2011, the husband (Harish Chandra) has challenged the enhancement of maintenance payable to his wife. 3) Brief facts of the case are that Harish Chandra got married to Leela Devi and couple had four children. Youngest Kavita lives with her mother (Leela Devi). Out of the remaining three children a son has died and two daughters are already married. It appears that Leela Devi and Kavita moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in the year 1993, claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In said case Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, in the year 1995, directed Harish Chandra to pay maintenance at the rate of ` 350/- per month to his wife and ` 200/- per month to his minor daughter (Kavita). Harish Chandra is a Class fourth employee with the Health Department of the State. The Criminal Misc. Application No. 39 of 2010, was moved by Leela Devi and Kavita for enhancement of maintenance in view of the increase of the salary of Harish Chandra. On said application Family Court, 3 Nainital, recorded the evidence of the parties, and after hearing them, enhanced the amount of maintenance payable to his wife (Leela Devi) from ` 350/- per month to ` 2500/- per month, as the salary of Harish Chandra has gone up to ` 15,000/- per month. However, trial court (family court, Nainital) dismissed the claim of the daughter (Kavita) for enhancement, on the ground that she has become major. 4) Learned counsel for Leela Devi and Kavita drew attention of this Court to the case of Jagdish Jugtawat Vs. Manju Lata (2002) 5 SCC, Page- 422 and it is contended that learned Judge, Family Court has erred in law in rejecting the claim of the major daughter (who is still unmarried). In the case of Jagdish Jugtawat (Supra) in which, it is held by Apex Court that since the major daughter, before her marriage is entitled to maintenance under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as such, to do complete justice between the parties and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is not illegal to grant maintenance to such daughter (major, who is unmarried) provided she is unable to maintain herself. In view of aforesaid case law, this Court finds that trial court (family court) should not have dismissed the claim of unmarried daughter merely on the ground that she has become major. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and economic status of the parties and the increase in the salary of father of the girl, direction to pay maintenance @ ` 1000/- per month (enhancing from ` 200/- per month directed to be paid in the year 1995), till she gets married would meet the ends of justice. 4 5) Learned counsel for the Harish Chandra argued before this Court that enhancement of an amount of ` 350/- per month to ` 2,500/- per month (payable to the wife) is arbitrary and exorbitant. However, on going through the papers on record, this Court finds that in view of the increase in the salary of the husband of Leela Devi (and father of Kavita) ` 2,500/- per month payable to his wife out of ` 15,000/- per month earned by her husband can not be said to be unreasonable. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, criminal revision No. 138 of 2011, filed by Harish Chandra is dismissed. And criminal revision No. 202 of 2011, is partly allowed. So far as the revision of Leela Devi is concerned, the same is dismissed. The revision of Kavita (unmarried major daughter) is allowed and amount of maintenance is enhanced from ` 200/- per month to ` 1000/- per month payable by her father Harish Chandra till she gets married. The maintenance at said rate shall be paid on same terms of the impugned order dated 13.05.2011, by Judge Family Court, Nainital to Leela Devi i.e. enhanced amount shall be payable w.e.f. 13.05.2011. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 02.11.2011 JM