IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1307 of 2008 ASHOK YADAV SON OF SHRI JAGDEO YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- IMALIYA CHAK, KATARI HILL ROAD, P.S.- RAMPUR, DISTRICT- GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHINTA DEVI D/O- SHRI SAMRU SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE- SRI BIGHA, P.S.- SHAKURABAD, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, APP ----------- 2 14.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Husband is before this court seeking quashing of order dated 4.9.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad in Misc. Case no. 01/2007.. A brief background of facts may firstly be set out. O.P. no. 2, wife of the petitioner, made an application in the court below seeking maintenance which gave rise to Case no. 7/1989. The said matter was contested by the husband (petitioner). On a consideration of the materials on record, learned court below granted maintenance in favour of the wife to the tune of Rs. 400/- per month. Aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner (husband) before this court by filing a criminal revision application. Said application was disposed of on 2.9.1993 whereby the amount of Rs. 400/- was reduced to Rs. 300/- per month. It is the petitioner’s case that he paid the said amount regularly till 2006. The wife (O.P. no. 2) made an application in the court below under Section 127(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount. 2 This gave rise to Misc. Case no. 01/2007. Learned court below permitted the parties to adduce evidence. The applicant (wife) examined four witnesses. The husband (petitioner) did not produce any evidence. It appears from the record that cross- examination of the witnesses were made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned court below has noted as under in paragraph 4 “…. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that she was married in 1980 and further stated that there are 32 rooms in the house of her father-in-law…..” The evidence on record indicate that the petitioner is Engineer by profession. It is further seen from the record that the family has a four storied house. The father of the petitioner is definitely in receipt of pension. On a consideration of the materials on record, the court below has held as under in paragraph 10 of the order impugned.: “10. The learned lawyer of the O.P. did not argue in this case and so it appears me a convincing argument on the part of the learned lawyer for the applicant that the facts that O.P is an Engineer and he earns Rs. 20,000/- per month remains uncontradicted. There can be no denying that there are steep rise in the cost of essential commodities since the date of order passed in maintenance case U/S 125 Cr.P.C. and the date of order is 04.06.1991. So considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears to me that the prayer of the applicant to raise the maintenance amount to Rs. 1500/- per month can not be said excessive on any count and accordingly this maintenance case is hereby allowed, and the O.P. is hereby directed to pay Rs. 1500/- (one thousand five hundred) per month to applicant Chinta Devi. The order shall take effect from today and the O.P. shall pay the maintenance amount by 10th day of every successive month.” 3 Conclusion of the court below thus cannot said to be perverse or unjust. In view of my discussion made above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. The application is dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )