1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.12/ 2011 (Sonali Tayade vs. Vijay Tayade and another ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 30 th June, 2011. Heard Mr U J Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicant ; Mr P S Kshirsagar, for respondent no.1 and Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned APP for respondent no.2- State. The applicant, by means of this revision, has questioned the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the order granting maintenance to the applicant herein in the sum of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of order i.e. with effect from 17.9.2010. The impugned order was passed in E. Petition No. 41/2010 by learned Judge of the Family Court, Akola . It does appear that in paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment, the maintenance granted in favour of the applicant was in the sum of Rs. 500/- per month under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by judgment and order dated 17.8.2009 and considering the income of the husband, the learned Judge Family Court granted a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicant with effect from 17.9.2010 (from the date of order). The next contention of the applicant is that 2 considering the monthly salary of the respondent and holding of agricultural land in his name, the maintenance granted in the sum of Rs.1,000/- is pathetically pittance and the amount ought to have been more in proportion to income of the respondent, to enable the applicant to maintain herself appropriately. Since this is a question regarding enhancement of the maintenance granted, an alternative and efficacious remedy is open for the applicant to move the trial Court under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the applicant adduce additional evidence in connection with monthly income or agricultural income of the respondent no.1 she can very well plead change in the circumstances in relation to additional evidence and pray for enhanced amount of maintenance. She is at liberty to do so. No interference with the impugned order is called for at this stage. With the above observations, Revision is dismissed. It is made clear that if such an application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. is made before the learned Family Court, it shall be dealt with on its own merit and in accordance with law. JUDGE Sahare