Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2751 (RAJ)

Mansur Ahmad v. Shabnam Bano

2022-11-14

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
Order 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, even in the second round. 2. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 19 (4) Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 20-08-2019 in criminal misc. case no. 479/2018 passed by learned Family Court No. 1, Bikaner, awarding increased maintenance amount, may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the application filed by the respondents may kindly be dismissed." 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the respondents, respondent no. 1 i.e. wife of the petitioner and respondent no.2 i.e. daughter of the petitioner and respondent no. 1, preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Court below claiming maintenance from the petitioner; and a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded to them; Rs. 2,500 to each of the respondents. Subsequently, by way of an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., enhancement of the maintenance amount , to 8,000/- for each of the respondents i.e. a total of Rs. 16,000/-, was sought by the respondents stating that the petitioner is a government servant earning a salary of Rs. 37,916/- per month. That the present petitioner filed a reply to the enhancement application, stating that after certain deductions were made from his salary, he earned an amount of Rs. 24, 591/- per month, from which he was also making certain payments towards instalments of Rs. 11,900/-. That after making the payment of Rs. 5,000/- he is left with only Rs. 7,691/- in hand. 4. It was further pleaded that the learned Court below has erred in allowing the Section 127 Cr.P.C. application of the respondents for an enhancement of the maintenance amount, whereby the maintenance amount was increased from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,250/- for each of the respondents, totaling an amount of Rs. 7,500/- per month. Vide the impugned order, it was further directed that the petitioner would be liable to pay the said amount of enhanced maintenance at an increasing rate of 10% per year from 01-08-2019 to respondent no. 1 for lifetime, and to respondent no. 2 until she got married alongwith the pending arrears towards maintenance to the respondents. 5. It was also pleaded that the petitioner’s sister is also financially dependent on him. 6. 1 for lifetime, and to respondent no. 2 until she got married alongwith the pending arrears towards maintenance to the respondents. 5. It was also pleaded that the petitioner’s sister is also financially dependent on him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record. That, the averments made on behalf of the petitioner herein were also duly considered by the learned Court below, before enhancing the amount of maintenance awarded the respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the maintenance amount awarded to the respondents vide the S.125 Cr.P.C. application was allowed in the year 2013, whereby an amount of Rs. 5,000 was awarded to the present respondents. And that, the application for enhancement, under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was brought before the learned Court below after about 6 years, in the year 2019. 9. This Court further observes that the learned Court below, vide the impugned order, has rightly noted that since 2013 owing to the inflation, costs of raising a child, among other things, reflected merit in the application for enhancement of maintenance preferred by the respondents. 10. This Court also observes that the learned Court below has, while increasing the maintenance amount of the respondents, duly considered the averments made on behalf of the petitioner herein, regarding certain deductions and payments towards installments. 11. This Court thus finds that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, ordering a fair enhancement of amount Rs. 750/- towards each of the respondents, increasing the maintenance from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,250/-. Furthermore, the direction towards an increase in the maintenance amount at a rate of Rs. 10% per year, is reasonable. 12. This Court, as an upshot of the above discussion, finds no legal infirmity in the impugned order, dated 20.08.2019, passed by the learned Court below, and thus, the same is hereby upheld and affirmed. 13. Resultantly, the present petition is without any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.