THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.R.C.No.435 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
This criminal revision case is directed against the order dated 06.09.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2010 in M.C.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the Family Court-cum-V-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, wherein the said petition filed 1st respondent- wife under Section 127 Cr.P.C., was allowed enhancing the maintenance amount from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and learned counsel for the 1st respondent-wife. Perused the material on record.
3. The 1st respondent, who is wife of the petitioner herein, filed M.C.No.15 of 2010 before the learned Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner claiming maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Judge, Family Court, after hearing both the learned counsel and after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, by order dated 26.10.2010 granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the 1st respondent-wife from the date of filing of the petition so long as she does not re-marry. Not satisfied with the same, the 2 1st respondent-wife filed Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2010 in M.C.No.15 of 2010 under Section 127 Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of maintenance. A perusal of the order, which is very cryptic, discloses that the petitioner-husband was absent and has not filed counter for long time in Crl.M.P.No.15 of 2010 and, therefore, he was set ex parte. The learned Judge, Family allowed the said petition enhancing the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.6000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision case is filed by the husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the 1st respondent-wife alleged in the petition filed seeking enhancement of compensation that she is often suffering from neurological and psychiatric problems and incurring Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month towards treatment, she has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The court below ought not to have enhanced the maintenance in the absence of any documentary proof being filed by the 1st respondent and the enhancement of maintenance of Rs.6,000/-, which is three fold, is 3 quite excessive and unreasonable. He prayed to set aside the order passed by the court below enhancing the maintenance.
5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-wife submits that the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in Commercial Taxes Department and getting a salary of Rs.40000/- per month and the enhancement of maintenance by the court below is just and reasonable. He prayed to dismiss the revision.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and having pursued the impugned order, it appears that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month was awarded to the 1st respondent-wife towards maintenance by the learned Judge, Family Court by order dated 26.10.2010 in M.C.No.15 of 2010. It also appears that the 1st respondent-wife filed Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2016 seeking enhancement of maintenance on 26.09.2016 wherein the petitioner has not filed counter for long time and the court below had rightly set the petitioner ex parte and by orders order dated 06.09.2018 allowed the petition by enhancing the maintenance from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.6,000/-. The said enhancement appears to be just and reasonable. Undisputedly, the petitioner is working as Junior 4 Assistant in Commercial Taxes Department earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month in the year 2016 and in view of the pay revision, his salary might have gone to Rs.55,000/- to Rs.65,000/- per month. Further, keeping in view the present day cost of living, the amount of Rs.6,000/- is not sufficient for the wife to lead the same standard of life and to meet the basic necessities had she been at her matrimonial home. The enhancement of maintenance to Rs.6,000/- is just and quite reasonable. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this court.
7. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 06.09.2022 Lrkm