ORDER : The petitioner wife has laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 19.03.2011 made by the Family Court at Belagavi in Criminal Misc. No.170 of 2010 whereby periodical enhancement of maintenance amount has been denied. 2. The brief facts stated are: (a) Petitioner No.1 married the respondent on 26.05.1991 at Neginahal village in Bailhongal Taluk. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are begotten from the marriage. The petitioners had filed Criminal Misc. No. 166 of 1995 and the Court of the learned JMFC, Savadatti had allowed the same on 13.09.2002 awarding a maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to the petitioner wife and Rs.300/- per month to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (sons) each. (b) After six years of awarding of maintenance, the petitioners had filed Crl. Misc. No. 170 of 2008 (later re-numbered as 170 of 2010) seeking enhancement of maintenance amount since the cost of living was increased in multiples and the sons namely petitioner No.2 was studying in Dharwad and petitioner No.3 was studying in Bailhongal. (c) They had approached this Court in Civil Petition No.528 of 2009 seeking transfer of their Crl. Misc. No.170 of 2008 from Family Court, Savadatti to the Family Court at Belagavi. This Court by its judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 had transferred the said Crl. Misc. No.170 of 2008 from the Court of JMFC, Savadatti to the Family Court at Belagavi. (d) On service of notice, the respondent husband had entered appearance and filed his objections admitting the marital relationship. He had contended that he has to look after the aged and ailing parents staying with him. He has incurred heavy medical expenses for their health. He has availed loan from Syndicate Bank, from Life Insurance Corporation and Teachers’ Cooperative Society. His salary of Rs.6,000/- per month is not sufficient for his own maintenance and the maintenance of his parents. (e) He further contended that the 1st petitioner is capable of maintaining herself. She is working as Asha Karyakarthe in Government hospital getting a salary of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner No.1 is doing tailoring job and earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. He also contended that the respondent has retired from service and getting a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month. (e) He further contended that the 1st petitioner is capable of maintaining herself. She is working as Asha Karyakarthe in Government hospital getting a salary of Rs.2,000/-. The petitioner No.1 is doing tailoring job and earning more than Rs.6,000/- per month. He also contended that the respondent has retired from service and getting a pension of Rs.10,000/- per month. (f) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and accompanying documents, the Court below had framed two issues, one relating to territorial jurisdiction and the other relating to entitlement of the petitioners for enhancement of maintenance amount. (g) The petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-10. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.R-1 to R-11. After looking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. However, it decided the case on merits holding that the petitioners are not entitled to any maintenance amount by way of enhancement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out from the lower court records the judgment and order dated 24.11.2009 made by this Court in petitioner’s Civil Petition No.528 of 2009 whereby the petitioners Crl. Misc. No.170 of 2008 for enhancement of maintenance amount was transferred from the Court of JMFC, Savadatti to the Family Court at Belagavi. The said Criminal Misc. has been renumbered as Crl. Misc. No.170 of 2010 in the Family Court at Belagavi. 4. The judgment of this Court has not been brought to the notice of the Family Court at Belagavi, which too has not noticed on its own. Therefore, the findings of the Court below that it lacked territorial jurisdiction is unsustainable. The said findings is set aside and it is held that the Family Court had jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that there was complete misdirection in law by the Court below inasmuch as once rightly or wrongly it recorded a finding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, the Court has failed seriously to advert to the contentions of the parties and consequently, the Court has approached the matter with a juridically defective angle resulting into judgment and order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. 6. 6. He requests this Court to peruse the evidentiary material to show that the respondent is financially well placed and that he owns both moveable and immoveable properties. The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically points out to Ex.P-1 and Ex.R-11 as to the respondent being employed as a Teacher in Government Kannada School. In Ex.R-11 his gross salary is shown to be Rs.22,578/- for the month of December 2010. This salary certificate is issued by the Block Education Officer, Savadatti. Ex.P-1 is the salary certificate of the respondent for the month of July 2010 showing that respondent was drawing salary of Rs.20,509/- in the basic pay of Rs.13,350/-. 7. The learned counsel points out that even if it is assumed that the respondent husband did not own any other properties, still the respondent is financially in a strong position to pay the maintenance to the petitioners. He also submits that the obligation of a man to maintain his wife and children is imposed not only by law and custom but also all religious scriptures. There is a lot of force in this submission. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out the ill-treatment meted out by the respondent to the petitioner wife which resulted into the petitioners quitting the matrimonial home and seeking refuge at the house of her parents. The respondent has produced some material to show that the father of the petitioner is drawing pension and that he is owning some properties. 9. This submission makes no difference inasmuch as the respondent’s father is under no legal duty to maintain the petitioners and it is the respondent who is in a legal duty to maintain the wife and children who are the petitioners in this case. 10. I have carefully considered all the aspects of the matter after going through the lower court records running into 231 pages. The petitioners’ side has shown material which came from authenticated source and there is no reason as to why the evidentiary material should be disbelieved. The respondent husband has not placed any material to substantiate his claim that the petitioner wife was doing tailoring job and that she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. The petitioner No.1 i.e., the wife has to maintain herself and two children. The respondent husband has not placed any material to substantiate his claim that the petitioner wife was doing tailoring job and that she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. 11. The petitioner No.1 i.e., the wife has to maintain herself and two children. May be that both the children have now attained majority, but that does not take away the right of the children that had accrued due during the period of minority when the petition was pending. 12. The petition was filed in the year 2011 although it is taken up for final disposal today. Nothing prevented the respondent from producing his salary certificate for the month of December, if not for the months of January and February – 2018. The Court takes judicial notice of enhancement of pay scales, consequential enhancement of dearness allowances and other allowances of Government employees, like the petitioner. Therefore, this petition deserves to be allowed. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, I make the following order: ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2011 in Criminal Misc. No.170 of 2010 passed by the Family Court, Belagavi, is set aside; (iii) The claim of the petitioners for enhancement of monthly maintenance amount from Rs.400/- to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per month to petitioner No.1 is allowed from the date of impugned judgment and order i.e., 19.03.2011; (iv) The claims of petitioner No.2 (born on 25.06.1992) and petitioner No.3 (born on 21.02.1994) who have since attained majority on 25.06.2010 and 21.02.2012 respectively are also allowed enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.300/- to Rs.2,000/- each 13 RPFC No.322 of 2011 with effect from the date of the impugned judgment and order i.e., 19.03.2011 till the date on which they attained the age of majority; (v) Costs made easy.