JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 23.10.2010, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has enhanced the interim maintenance granted to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 5,00/- per month, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 10.11.2009, the complainant-respondent No.1, Smt. Dimpal Alwani, filed an application against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act', for short) before the trial court for maintenance. In the complaint, she stated that she got married with the petitioner on 24.7.2007. In this marriage, her father gave sufficient dowry. But immediately after the marriage, the petitioner started torturing her and committed domestic violence. She further claimed that the petitioner runs a coaching institute and earns sufficient income. Hence, her prayer for maintenance. The petitioner filed his reply to the complaint and denied the allegations made in it by the respondent No.1. However, vide order dated 31.05.2010, the learned trial court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the respondents as maintenance. Against the order dated 31.05.2010, both the petitioner and the respondents filed their respective appeals before the learned appellate court. However, vide order dated 23.10.2010, the learned appellate court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has relied upon evidence which was not produced before the trial court when the trial court passed its order dated 31.5.2010. In fact, the learned Judge has relied on the evidence which was produced for the first time before him. The said evidence has not even been subject to cross-examination. Therefore, the learned Judge has exercised a power not vested in him. Secondly, the petitioner had given a valid justification for sudden decrease in his income from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in not accepting his explanation and in enhancing the maintenance amount. Thirdly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for enhancing the maintenance amount. 4. Secondly, the petitioner had given a valid justification for sudden decrease in his income from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 35,000/-. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in not accepting his explanation and in enhancing the maintenance amount. Thirdly, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reason for enhancing the maintenance amount. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. Firstly, there is no Bar in Cr.P.C. which prevents an appellate court from looking at fresh evidence which may be produced before it subsequently. In this case both, the petitioner and the respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2010, had filed their respective appeals. While the petitioner had submitted his income-tax returns in order to make out a case that his income had suddenly decreased from Rs. 1,44000/- to Rs. 35,000/-, the respondent No.1 had submitted documents to show the fact that the petitioner had bought a RHB house in 2001. In order to assess the income of the petitioner, the learned Judge has relied upon the income-tax returns submitted by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim that the learned Judge was not justified in relaying upon fresh evidence which was produced by the petitioner himself. As far as the evidence produced by the respondent No.1-wife is concerned, the learned Judge did not even pay attention to it. Therefore, the assessment of the income and the consequent enhancement of maintenance by the learned Judge is based on evidence which was produced by the petitioner himself. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that the learned Judge was not justified in looking at fresh evidence, that too the evidence which has not even been subject to cross-examination, does not hold water. 6. Secondly, th learned Judge has given cogent reason for not believing the last income-tax return submitted by the petitioner. The complaint was filed on 10.11.2009 and the income-tax returns was submitted on 7.7.2010. Since there is sudden decreased in the income of the petitioner, as reflected by the income-tax return filed after the complainant filed the complaint, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands. Moreover, considering the high rate of inflation, and the increase in prices in essential commodities, the learned Judge was certainly justified in enhancing the maintenance from Rs. Moreover, considering the high rate of inflation, and the increase in prices in essential commodities, the learned Judge was certainly justified in enhancing the maintenance from Rs. 1,500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 7. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the matter as soon as possible.Petition dismissed. *******