IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 146 of 2003 Surendra Singh .…. Revisionist Versus Family Court, Pauri Garhwal & Anr. ……… Respondents September 27, 2010 None for the revisionist. Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 7/2002, Smt. Rajani Devi v. Surendra Singh u/s 127 CrPC, whereby the learned court below has enhanced the maintenance amount and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 instead of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 1.12.2002. Revisionist has also challenged the order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 46/2003 under Section 125(3) CrPC, whereby recovery warrant has been ordered to be issued and salary of the revisionist was directed to remain attached till complete recovery. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Tehri Garhwal vide order dated 6.4.2000 and the revisionist was directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- to the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the respondents no. 2 moved an application under Section 127 2 CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground of changed circumstances including the increase in the income of the revisionist as well as increase in the expenditure of the respondent no. 2. 3. The revisionist did not turn up before the court below and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the applicant/respondent no. 2 and after appreciating the evidence on record and taking into account the changed facts and circumstances of the case, learned Judge, Family Court vide his judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 allowed the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 2 with costs and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2000/- per month instead of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 1.12.2002 and also directed the revisionist to pay the arrears till the date of said order within one month. When the revisionist did not pay the respondent no. 2 the enhanced amount of maintenance and the arrears thereof, then the respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 125(3) CrPC, on which learned court below vide order dated 27.8.2003 ordered to issue recovery warrant and attachment of the pay of revisionist till the complete recovery. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. None appeared for the revisionist despite service. 6. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 reveals that the court below has considered all the circumstances in the entirety. At the time of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC, the maximum amount 3 of maintenance which can be awarded by the court was Rs. 500/- and it was subsequently amended and no upper limit was prescribed. Moreover, revisionist is a Govt. Servant and at the time of moving the maintenance application, his salary was very low which subsequently increased to Rs. 6500/- per month at the time of passing the impugned order and it must have further increased by now. Hence, in these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of properly maintaining his wife. Furthermore. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 2000/- cannot be said to be excessive by any standard when the revisionist is in regular Government service and was earning Rs. 6500/- per month at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2003, which must have further increased substantially by now. Moreover, the revisionist has five bighas of fertile land and he is having income of nearly rupees fifty thousand from it. Hence, in these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 and 27.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal and the same require no interference by this Court. 7. Resultantly, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 19.7.2003 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 7/2002, Smt. Rajani Devi v. Surendra Singh u/s 127 CrPC and the order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No. 46/2003 under Section 125(3) CrPC are hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 1.10.2003 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance amount shall be accordingly paid to the respondent no. 2 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.9.2010 PRABODH