IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 57 OF 2005 Ram Avatar S/o Sri Chandi Prasad, R/o Raja Ka Tajpur, P.O. Khas, Police Station-Noorpur, Tehsil Chandpur, District Bijnor. ……… Revisionist Versus 1.State of Uttarakhand 2.Smt. Usha D/o Narayan Gupta, R/o Dayanand Nagri, Jwalaur, Police Station Jwalapur, Distt. Haridwar, 3.Judge Family Court, Haridwar. .……….Respondents Dated: October 21 , 2008 Sr. B.M. Pingal, Adv. for the revisionist. Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 3, None for the respondent no. 2. 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.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Misc. case no. 43 of 2003 Smt. Usha Gupta vs. Ram Avatar, whereby the Judge, Family Court has allowed the petition u/s 127 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent Smt. Usha and enhanced the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of order i.e. from 01.02.2005. It is further directed that such amount of allowance shall be adjusted with the other maintenance allowance relating to the permanent alimony. 2. None is present on behalf of respondent no.2. I have heard Sri B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the revisionist and 2 Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 3 and perused the record. 3. From perusal of the record it reveals that the respondent no.2-Smt. Usha Gupta 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. 1046 of 1994 filed by the wife- respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.04.1997 the revisionist-husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 400/- per month to the respondent no. 2-Smt. Usha as maintenance. It is further averted that the amount of maintenance earlier awarded is inadequate, as the salary of the opposite party has been raised to Rs. 10,000/- per month, which was Rs. 4,000/- per month in the year 1997 when the maintenance was awarded. It is further averted that the O.P.-revisionist also earns Rs. 15,000/- per month by the shop. In the prevailing circumstances and keeping in view the needs of the respondent, according to her present requirements, the amount of maintenance may be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- per month instead of Rs. 400/- per month. The revisionist-husband contested the proceeding before the Trial Court and filed objection. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties the trial court vide his impugned order dated 01.02.2005 partly allowed the application of the wife-respondent no.2 and the amount of maintenance was enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the date of the order i.e. from 01.02.2005. It is further directed that such amount of allowance shall be adjusted with the other maintenance allowance relating to the permanent alimony. Aggrieved with this order this revision has been filed by the husband-revisionist. 4. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the revisionist is presently serving as Assistant in the Agricultural Department and is drawing salary to the tune of 3 Rs. 5,000/- per month. Further the revisionist has remarried and is looking after himself, his second wife and two daughters and. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist has the other liabilities towards his second wife and two daughters. The amount of maintenance is adequate as per the requirement of the respondent no.2. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, the court below has totally ignored the hardship, adverse circumstances and financial conditions of the revisionist. I have gone through the impugned order dated 01.02.2005 and perused the record. The trial court has considered the financial conditions of the parties. The order impugned reveal that vide order dated 26.04.1997 in the case no. 1046/1994 filed by the wife-respondent no.2 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance allowance to tune of Rs. 400/- per month was allowed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that when the maintenance allowance was awarded the salary of the husband- revisionist was Rs. 4,000/- per month while the income of the revisionist has been increased now to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary besides it the revisionist is also earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from a shop, whereupon considering the prevailing prices of essential commodities, the maintenance allowance has been enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on the record the court below has rightly enhanced the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- per month which is justified and correct and based upon the prevailing prices in comparison to the prices of the year 1997. In my view the order of the court below in enhancing the maintenance allowance is justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. On perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order dated 01.02.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 4 5. Accordingly, the revisionist is dismissed. Interim order dated 24.03.2005 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 21.10.2008 NCM