fy^ ;^a Petltloners R@s&©nd@nt HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH -4T BIL4SPUR Cr.m.P.No.3.34 of 2009 1- Moharmati, W/o.Jitambar PateJ, Caste- Aghariya, aqed about 40 years 2< ftavindra Nath ©Yadav, S/o<Jitambar, aged about 21 years, Both R/o. Viltege-SukhapQJi, Post - Bonda, P.S. Sariya, TahsiJ Sarangarh, DiStrict ftaigarh (C.(S.) Versus Jitambar Patel, S/o.Bhaglrathl Patel, Caste-AghGriya, a9ed about 43 years, R/o. Viilage ana' Post ftis'ora, P.S.Sariya, Tahsjj-Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C^.) (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bteMr.T.P. Sh©rma,J.) Pre^nt:- J^r.Roghavendra Pradhan, counsel for 1tie petitloners. Mr.Vasim Miyan, counsel for 1nie respondent, ORAL OR&ER (Posssd on 29th October. 2009) 1. The petitioners haye fiied this petitjon against the orcter dated 21.4,2009 passed by the Additiona! Sessions Jydge, Sarc^garh in Cri^inaJ Reyision No.82/2006, affirming -the order doted 30.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Cbss, &irongQrh, in CrJmina! MJC No.7/2003 whereby Searned Judicial Magistrate First Ctass hos dismlssed the application for enhancement of the maintenance owarded to the petitioners. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that the or>der of maintenance of Rs.350/- per month was possed m the year 1997 and after tapSB of 9 years in the year 2006, maintenance wss not a!tBred by 1+ie Court below on 1+re ground that the petitioners have falled to prove Increase in the price index. ^) ,_ 3. Brlef facts giying rsse to 1+iis petition are that petitjoner No.l js wife and petitioner No-2 »sSon ^resently he is major) of the respondent. J^aintenanc^ of Rs.350/- per mon1+1 and Rs.300/- per month was awarded by the Judicja! Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh vide order dated 3.4.97 In Crjmina! MJC No.68/96. Appllcation for alteration (Increase) of the amount of maintenwiice was filed by the petitioners before the JudicJQ! Magistrate First Cbss, SarangQtrh in the year 2003 which was dismissed yide order dated 30.1<2006 and the same was affirmed by the order impugned. 4. I haye heard learned counse! for the parties and perused the order impygned and records of the Courts below< 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that moJntenance of Rs.350/- per month was awarded to petitloner No.l in the yeor 1997 and after* lopse of 9 years, the Court beiow has not increased the amount of maintenance. 6. On the other hand, learned counse! for the respondent supported the order impugned ond submits that petitioner No.2 is not entJtled for further maintenance because he has att-ained the age of majorlty. Learned counse! further submits that sn absence of any proof of increase In the price index and increase of income of the respondent, the Court below has rightly rejected the q?p!ication for alterQtion fHed on behalf of 1+ie petitloners- Z Admittediy, petstioner No<2 has attGined the age of majorit^/, therefore, he is not entltled for any masntenance from the date of attainjng the age of his majority. 8» As regords the question for enhancement of maintenance of petitioner No-1 Is concerned, admittedly, price of articles and price index have substantialSy increased between 1997 to 2006. The respondent is iiable for maintenance and the amount of maintenance of Rs350/aB per month to petitioner No.l is not sufficient. 8/- - G " 9. Consequently, the petition is albwed. Jhe order impugned is partly modsfied ond instead of maintenanc^ of Rs.350/- per month, petitjoner No.! is awarded the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month fr'om the date of the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Ciass, Sarangarh i.e.30.1.2006. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge l^—