HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 11 of 2007 Surendra Jaiswal S/o Pahalwan Jaiswal, R/o 68, Karanpur, Dehradun. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. Smt. Asha D/o late Sant Ram Jaiswal, W/o Sri Surendra Jaiswal, 2. Km. Khushboo (minor) D/o Sri Surendra Jaiswal, Through her natural guardian Smt. Asha w/o Surendra Jaiswal, R/o 26 Pipal Mandi, Pan Ki Dukan, Dehradun. ------- Respondents None is present for the revisionist, Sri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: August 13, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision preferred u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Case no. 258/2003 Smt. Asha and another vs. Sri Surendra Jaiswal, whereby the application filed u/s 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the amount of maintenance was enhanced for the applicant-wife to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 500/-per month and for the applicant- daughter to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 350/- per month (in total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of the order. 2. List is revised, but none has responded on behalf of the revisionist. I have heard Sri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no.1-wife filed a petition against the revisionist u/s 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance with the averments that in the case no. 231/1995 Smt. Asha vs. Surendra filed by her u/s 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17.04.1997 the revisionist- husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per month to the applicant-Smt. Asha and a sum of Rs. 250/- per month to the applicant-Khushboo as maintenance. Vide order dated 11.01.2000 passed in case no. 273/1999 the amount of maintenance for the applicant-Khushboo was increased @ Rs. 350/- per month till she becomes major. It is further averted that the amount of maintenance is inadequate, as the prices of essential commodities have been increased and it is difficult to survive for such a meager amount of maintenance. At the time of awarding the interim maintenance, the salary of the revisionist was Rs. 7,000/- per month but now his salary is Rs. 12,000/- per month, besides it he earns money from his property and from all resources he earns Rs. 20,000 to 21,000/- per month. In the prevailing circumstances and keeping in view the needs of the respondent no.1 & 2 the amount of maintenance may be enhanced from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month for applicant-wife and similarly for the applicant-daughter from Rs. 350/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month, according to their present requirements. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. The revisionist has conceded that maintenance was awarded in the previous proceedings. The respondent-wife has sufficient means of income. It is stated that his income has been shown wrongly. Before the Trial Court, the 3 respondent-wife led her evidence. The revisionist did not produce any evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the respondent-wife the trial court vide his impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2006 allowed the application of the wife-respondent no.1 and the amount of maintenance was enhanced for the applicant-wife to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 500/-per month and for the applicant-daughter to the tune of Rs. 750/- per month instead of Rs. 350/- per month (in total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of the order. Aggrieved with this order this revision has been filed by the husband-revisionist. 4. The order impugned has been assailed, inter-alia, on the ground that income of the revisionist has wrongly been assessed and the respondent-wife is self dependent. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I found that in support of her version the respondent has filed receipt in regard to the school fee of respondent no.2 (per list 28Ka), which shows that a sum of Rs. 710/- per month is being paid as fee including the tuition fee. The revisionist did not produce any evidence in regard to the purchase of the property by the respondent-wife. The trial court keeping in view the increasing prices of the essential commodities found the amount of maintenance earlier awarded, as inadequate. The revisionist has admitted that his income is Rs. 4,527/- per month. Therefore, considering all these circumstances, the trial court rightly enhanced the amount of maintenance @ Rs. 750/- per month each for the respondent no. 1 & 2 (total Rs. 1,500/- per month) from the date of order instead of Rs. 500/- and 350/- per month which was earlier awarded in favour of the respondent no. 1 & 2 4 respectively. In my opinion, the trial court does not commit any manifest error of law in passing the order impugned and the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 06.11.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.08.2008 NCM: