IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.219 of 2008 AMARNATH TIWARY …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI 3. AUSTOSH @ BANTI …OPPOISTE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Md. Zeauddin For o.p.nos.2 and 3 :Mr.Ranjan Kr. Srivastava For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 05.10.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is the husband. He is aggrieved by order dated 05.02.2008, passed in Misc. Case No.237/2000, whereby the application preferred by the applicant-wife for enhancement of maintenance has been considered and allowed. It appears that an order was passed on 20.05.2005 under section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby on a consideration of materials brought on record, the husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.900/- to the wife and a sum of Rs.900/- per month to the son. It further appears from the order impugned that no rejoinder was filed by the o.p. and, in fact, he did not contest the application. Learned court below on a consideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that the applicant-wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.1200/- in place of 900/- per month as maintenance. The son was found grown up and accordingly maintenance at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month was allowed. Trial court found that petitioner-husband is living in Delhi and is employed in a reputed firm. Counsel for the petitioner submits that amount so 2 enhanced by learned court below may be onerous and thus reduced. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the enhancement is in fact inadequate considering the fact the son has now to attend school. Be that as it may, since the petitioner did not choose to contest the application whereafter an order has been passed by the court below taking a reasonable view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith. The application is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )