HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5637 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is husband of the 1st respondent. Previously, by order dated 13-0 6-2007 in MC No.142 of 2004 the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry, awarded maintenance of Rs.750/- per month to the wife under Section125 Cr.P.C. giving reasons therefor. 2. Subsequently, the 1st respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.692 of 2008 in the lower court for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.750/- p.m. to Rs.1500/- p.m. under Sections 125(3) and 127 Cr.P.C. The Family Court, Rajahmundry, by the impugned order dated 18-12-2008 enhanced the maintenance as prayed for and allowed the petition. The petitioner did not question the said order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. by filing any revision petition. Instead, after long lapse of time and after period of limitation for filing revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. had expired, he had chosen to file this criminal petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C,. on 27-07- 2009. I find that the petitioner is guilty of latches in approaching this Court. 3. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel by placing reliance on Shail Kumari Devi V. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B.Pathak[1] that an order under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. should contain reasons whether to grant or refuse to grant maintenance thereunder. In so far as the order passed by IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13-06-2010 is concerned, it is a reasoned and considered order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. In so far as the present order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is an order passed by the lower court for default on the part of the petitioner/husband in cross-examining 1st respondent/wife as PW-1. On 25-09-2008 itself P.W.1’s affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief was filed. From 29-5-2008 the petition for enhancement underwent several adjournments to 30- 9-2008, 14-10-2008, 03-11-2008, 10-11-2008, 17.11.2008, 20-11- 2008, 01-12-2008, 11-12-2008, 18-12-2008. The petitioner/husband was either absent on all the above occasions or when present, requested time for cross-examination. On 18- 12-2008 the petitioner was absent and there was no representation for him in the lower court. Therefore, the lower court set him exparte in the petition. It shows that the petitioner was bent upon in prolonging the matter to the detriment of the 1st respondent herein. In those circumstances, the lower court is justified in passing the order in question. 5. Coming to the order on merits, the previous order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. fixing maintenance at Rs.750/- p.m. was made on 13-06-2007 w.e.f. the date of filing of MC No.142 of 2004 in the year 2004. The present petition for enhancement was filed on 16-08-2008, after lapse of four years of filing original maintenance case. The 1st respondent stated in her petition that due to steep increase in cost of living, she is unable to maintain herself with meager sum of Rs.750/- p.m. Admittedly, the petitioner is doing cloth business. Income of the petitioner in his cloth business is within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner did not come forward to place any material to show that he has no sufficient income to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the 1st respondent. Increase in cost of living is a general phenomenon involving inflation. Therefore, the lower court is justified not only on facts also in enhancing the maintenance from Rs.750/- pm. to 1500 p.m. 6. In the result the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 18-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2008(6) SCJ 541