IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 153 OF 2008 SHRI. CAITANO ANTONIO LOURENCO CRASTO ... Applicant Versus MRS. ASSENCAO ANDRADE CRASTO ALIAS DORIS CRASTO AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th September, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Pangam, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner. 2. By consent terms filed and accepted on 1/03/2004, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- each to his two children. At that time, the basic pay of the petitioner is stated to have been Rs. 3,050/-. It was stated in the said consent terms that the petitioner's children would reserve their right to move an application for enhancement of maintenance. The petitioner's basic salary has now gone up to Rs. 3,350/-. I have perused the statement of salary and deductions filed on behalf of the petitioner for the month of May, 2008. Considering the increased needs of the petitioner's children as well as his salary, the learned first appellate Court has enhanced the sum of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/- per child. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that there are certain deductions to be made by the petitioner and the petitioner gets hardly anything in his hands. As said before, I have perused the said statement. Considering the increased needs of petitioner's children as well as his salary, the enhancement of the maintenance to be paid by order dated 19/03/2008 could not be faulted. In my view, this is not a fit case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH