IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 225 of 2005 Prahalad Singh .…. Revisionist Versus Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun & Ors. ……… Respondents August 13, 2010 Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. 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 4.10.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 212/2002, Smt. Birkha Devi & Anr. v. Prahalad Singh u/s 127 CrPC, whereby the learned court below has enhanced the maintenance amount and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent no. 3 instead of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- per month respectively with effect from the date of the said order. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 is the divorced wife of the revisionist. Respondent no. 2 had filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which was allowed by the Special Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun vide order dated 4.4.1991 and the revisionist was directed to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs. 300/- to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 150/- to respondent no. 3. Thereafter the respondents no. 2 and 3 moved an application under Section 127 CrPC for enhancement of the maintenance amount on the ground of increase in the income of the revisionist as well as increase in the expenditure of the respondents no. 2 & 3. 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 4.10.2005 allowed the aforesaid application of the respondents no. 2 & 3 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 500/- per month to respondent no. 3 instead of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 150/- per month respectively with effect from the date of the said order. Hence, this revision has been filed by the revisionist. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2005 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 salary of the revisionist was Rs. 1700/- per month, but at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order, his gross salary was Rs. 5500/- per month, which must have further increased by now as it is the admitted case of the revisionist that he is serving in ITBP and was getting a gross salary of Rs. 5500/- per month besides other facilities. Hence, in these circumstances, revisionist cannot shirk himself from the responsibility of properly maintaining his divorced wife and son. Furthermore, respondent no. 3 has grown up and now he is studying. Hence, the amount of Rs. 150/- per month granted for his maintenance was grossly insufficient. Monthly maintenance of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- awarded to respondents no. 2 and 3 respectively cannot be said to be 2 excessive by any standard when the revisionist is in regular Government service and was earning Rs. 5500/- per month at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2005, which must have further increased substantially by now. Hence, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 4.10.2005 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 4.10.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 212/2002, Smt. Birkha Devi & Anr. v. Prahalad Singh u/s 127 CrPC is hereby affirmed. Interim order dated 23.11.2005 stands vacated. Arrears of maintenance amount shall be accordingly paid to the respondents no. 2 and 3 within two months from the date of this order. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.8.2010 PRABODH 3