Smt. Patashi vs. Shri Anand Harijan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Revision No.159/2004) Dated:- 3.1.2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr.K.R.Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the State. This is a revision petition against the order of Family Court,Jodhpur dated 7.1.2004 whereby the Court has awarded Rs.800/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance from the date of application i.e. 31.5.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount awarded as above is insufficient and therefore it should be reasonably increased. He has referred to the agreement Ex.1 allegedly executed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner wherein the respondent no.1 has agreed to give half of his pay to the petitioner. As per the agreement Ex.1 the income of the respondent no.1 is more than Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner in her statement admits that she is earning Rs.500/- per month. Considering her own admission, the income of the respondent no.2 and all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Family Court has awarded to the petitioner Rs.800/- per month as maintenance. I do not think that the amount awarded by the Family Court is so insufficient as to warrant interference. I, therefore, find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (G.S.SARRAF),J.