IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.3 OF 2006 Ravindra Kumar … Revisionist Versus Presiding Judge, Family Court Dehradun & another … Respondents Dated: August 3, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the respondent no.1 in Crl. Case No.597/2002, U/s 127 of the Cr.P.C. No one is present for the revisionist, though list has been revised and power has also been filed by Mr. Navnit Kaushik on behalf of revisionist. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 and Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. for respondent no.2 are present. Perused the material available on record. In brief the facts of the case are that on 4.10.1996, Special J.M. (CBI) Dehradun allowed the application moved by the respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.500/- per month. On 30.7.2002, the respondent no.2 moved application for enhancement of maintenance u/s 127 Cr.P.C. The revisionist also filed his objection against that application. The application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the court below against the revisionist vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 thereby the maintenance was enhanced to Rs.2000/- per month from Rs.500/- per month granted earlier. Hence this revision. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent no.2 produced the photocopy of the judgment dated 4.10.96 passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in which it was stated that that time the revisionist was working as Cabin Man in Railway Department getting Rs.4000/- per month as salary. At the time of passing of the order, the revisionist himself 2 submitted his pay-slip according to which the revisionist was posted as Assistant Station Master getting Rs.10754/- per month as salary and after deductions his net salary was Rs.9197/- per month. The court also took notice of the fact that since 1996 till the date of passing of order, the cost of living was increased many times. After analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the court below allowed the application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs.2000/- per month from Rs.500/- per month as granted earlier. From the overall analysis of the matter, I find that the court below rightly enhanced the maintenance amount against the revisionist and this Court does not find any justification or reasonable ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the court below. Even I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is affirmed. Interim order dated 12.1.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 3, 2010 Rajeev Dang