IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 88 of 2010 Lalit Mohan .…. Revisionist Versus Smt. Suneeta Badhwa ……… Respondent August 5, 2010 None for the parties. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 600/2002, Smt. Suneeta Badhwa v. Lalit Mohan u/s 127 CrPC, whereby the learned court below has enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 2000/- per month with effect from the date of the said order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Dehradun vide order dated 20.10.2001 and the revisionist was directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the respondent with effect from the date of making the said application i.e. 27.11.1998. Thereafter the respondent moved an application on 31.7.2002 under Section 127 CrPC for enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs. 500 to Rs. 5000/- per month on the ground of increase in the income of the revisionist. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent and directed the revisionist to pay her the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month with effect from the date of order. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist. 4. I have perused the materials available on record. None appeared for the revisionist as well as for the respondent though the list was revised twice. 5. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. The revisionist was earlier earning Rs. 6000/- per month, but his monthly income increased subsequently and now he is earning Rs. 15000/- per month when the impugned judgments and order dated 15.2.2010 was passed. Hence, in these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of properly maintaining his wife. Furthermore, monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive by any standard when the revisionist is earning Rs. 15000/- per month. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun and it requires no interference by this Court. 6. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 600/2002, Smt. Suneeta Badhwa v. Lalit Mohan u/ s 127 CrPC is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 16.6.2010 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance amount shall be accordingly paid to the respondent within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.8.2010 PRABODH 2