2. Heard both sides and perused the material on
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
Crl.Misc.No.149/2015 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. seeking
per month. The said petition having been contested by the
sides. While arriving at the said conclusion, the trial Court held
4. Perusing the facts narrated in the petition
and objection statement and documents furnished by
both parties, the following points arise for my
consideration.
4. What order?
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
5. The petitioner to prove her case, examined
herself P-1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1
to 23, the respondent to prove his defense,
examined himself as RW.1 got marked documents as
per Ex.D.1 to D.40.
6 The learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondent have submitted their written arguments.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in
support of his arguments placed reliance on the
following judgments.
1. Copy of Civil Appeal No.5369/2017 in supreme
court
2. 2017(1) Civil Law Journal page no.541
3. AIR 1988 Calcutta page no.98
4. AIR 1989 Calcutta page.80
5. 2001(1) Civil Law Journal 556
6. AIR 1971 SC 234
7. 2015(1) Civil Law Journal 512
8. AIR 2011 Supreme Court page 2748
9. AIR 2014 Supreme Court page 2875
10. 2018 Part IV KCCR 3584
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has
placed his reliance on the following judgment.
1. AIR 1958 RAJSTAN 322
2. AIR 1975 SC 83
3. AIR 1983 GUJARATH 215
4. AIR 1984 DELHI 320
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
5. AIR 1987 AP 237
6. AIR 1989 MP 259
7. 1991(1) CLJ 228
8. 2001 CLJ 734
9. AIR 2004 DELHI 323
10. AIR 2004 DELHI 442
11. Judgment in Criminal Review Pet
no.634/71 passed by the DELHI HIGH COURT
page no.273
9. On going through the written arguments and
oral and documentary evidence, made available by
the parties and on going through the ratio laid down
in the decision referred by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and respondent, my answers to the
above-mentioned points are as under.
Point No.1 In the affirmative
Point No.2 In the affirmative
Point No.3 In the partly affirmative
Point No.4 As per the final order for the following;
:: REASONS ::
10. POINT NO.1 TO 3: These points are
interconnected with each other, hence to avoid
repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, all
the points are taken together for common discussion.
The petitioner and respondent are divorced husband
and wife; they do not need sentimental bondage to
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
live the rest of their lives; the court must only
determine the prices of essential items and other
factors necessary to determine the quantum of
maintenance.
11. To prove her case, the petitioner was
examined on oath as PWI. In her examination in
chief, she reiterated the contents of the petition. The
learned counsel for the respondent has extensively
cross-examined the petitioner, but nothing worth has
been elicited from her mouth to disbelieve her case.
Apart from oral evidence, the petitioner has
produced documents marked as per Ex.P.1 to P.23;
out of these documents, Ex.P.1 is the salary
certificate of the respondent for December 2014; as
per said document, his monthly net salary was Rs.
83,186/-, Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the divorce
petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner
for seeking a decree of divorce. Ex.P.3 is the certified
copy of the maintenance order granted by this Court:
Ex P.5 is the house property extract standing in the
name of the respondent: Ex.P.6 is the record of
rights of an agricultural land standing in the name of
the respondent's mother, the extent of the land is 23
guntas, nature of the soil is red. Ex. P9 is the
medical certificate given by the doctor showing that
the petitioner has been suffering from diabetes since
2007, and is getting treatment regularly. Ex.P17 is
the rent agreement of the house in which the
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
petitioner is residing; its monthly rent is Rs.3,500/-,
and she paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as the security
deposit, the said rent period was extended up to May
31, 2015, and the rent was increased to Rs.3,600/-
per month. Ex.P.21 is the salary certificate of the
respondent for April 2018, which shows that the net
salary of the respondent was Rs.1,14,102/-, Ex.P.22
is the pension slip, which shows that, the respondent
is drawing a monthly pension of Rs.48,774/-, Ex.P.22
is the crop declaration certificate issued by the
deputy Tahsildar, stating that, the land that is
standing in the name of the petitioner is barren land
and no crops have been grown on the said land. The
rest of the documents are the medicine prescription
and medical bills.
12. On perusal of Ex P.21 and Ex P.22, it is
revealed that the respondent is getting a pension of
Rs. 48,774 and that he also got retirement funds
from the college. Further the respondent has owned
a residential house and also possessed agricultural
land in the name of his mother: therefore, on careful
analysis of documents, the court concludes that the
respondent has sufficient means to pay the enhanced
maintenance that would be awarded by the Court.
13. The respondent, to prove his defense,
examined himself as RW.1, and in his examination in
chief affidavit, he reiterated the contents of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
objection statement. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has cross-examined RW.1 and extracted
the admission from his mouth. In his cross-
examination, RW.1 admitted that his two brothers
are also government employees, and his two sisters
are living with him in separate houses because their
husbands have died.
14. The RW.1 also admits that his son works
for a private company and receives a salary of Rs.
15,000 to 20,000 per month; he also admits that the
price of essential items has increased from 2010 to
2015; and the witness further stated that he
instructed the college staff not to give the petitioner
salary details because salary details are his personal
matter and cannot be given to anyone. The witness
admits that he has a car in his name that he bought
with a bank loan, but he has not produced any
documentation to prove that he obtained the loan;
the witness also admitted that he would receive a
retirement benefit of Rs. 10 lakhs; the witness also
admitted that he receives a monthly pension of Rs.
48,774/- and that his last salary was Rs. 1,91,000/-.
The respondent has produced documents as per
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.40; among these documents, Ex.D.4
is the record of rights of agricultural land jointly
standing in the name of the petitioner and her
brother; the extent of land is 27 guntas, nature of
the soil is black, Ex.D.5 is the record of rights of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
agricultural land bearing standing in the name of the
petitioner, extent of land is 1 acre, 18 guntas, nature
of the soil is red; and the land has grown paddy and
areca nut crops. Ex.D.6 is the record of right of an
agricultural land standing in the name of petitioner,
the land's extent is 38 guntas; the soil is black and
areca nut crops are grown there. Ex.D.9 is the
Mediclaim Insurance Bond: the sum assured to the
petitioner is Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the policy already
lapsed on February 22, 2017. Ex.D.9 is the
Mediclaim Insurance Bond, and the sum assured to
the petitioner is Rs. 1,00,000/-. The said policy
lapsed on 22.02.2016. Ex.D.15 is the certified copy
of the deposition of the petitioner in the cheque
bounce case, and she admits that she had received a
sum of Rs. 3 lacs from the respondent in the
maintenance case. Ex.D.17 is the MRI scan report of
the respondent, which shows that the respondent is
suffering from cervical spondylosis, Ex.D23 is the
letter given by college authorities stating that, the
respondent would retire from service on 31.05.2019,
Ex.D.24 is the salary slip for January 2019, and his
net salary was Rs.1,72,420/:-, Ex.D.25 is the AG
slip, wherein it is mentioned that the respondent is
getting a retirement benefit of Rs. 10 lacs, Exhibits
26 to 39 are LIC loan payment receipts, Exhibit 40 is
the current-year record of rights to agricultural land
standing in the petitioner's name and grown areca-
nut crops.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
stated in his written argument that the respondent
has a sufficient source of income, but to suppress the
said facts, he does not produce the document. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
decided in Civil Appeal No.5369/2017 between
Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Choudhary
Nee Nandy, in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that, if the court award maintenance which is
25% of the total net income, that would be
reasonable quantum of maintenance.
16. The next judgment relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is reported in 2017(1)
Civil L.J 541 decided by the Hon'ble High Court
of Calcutta in of Rirta Dey Choudary Nee Nandy
Vs Dr Kalayan Choudary, in this case, the Hon'ble
High Court of Calcutta has held that is the duty of
the court to see that of the Court to see that the wife
lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury. The
living need not be luxurious but at the same time,
she should set left to live in discomfort. The court
has to act with a pragmatic sensibility to such an
issue so that the wife does not meet with any kind of
man-made misfortune. Further hold that the Court
has to look into the aspects of inflation trends, and a
general increase in the consumer price index.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
17. The next decision which is relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in AIR
1988 Calcutta 98 between Chitra Sengupta Vs
Dhurba Jyothi Sengupta, in this case, the Hon'ble
High Court of Calcutta has held that in the
maintenance case filed by the wife against her
husband, then the onus is on the husband to disclose
his income.
18. The next decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is reported in 2001(1)
Civil L.J 556 between Laskhmi Sharan Vs Shri
Anurag Sharan, the court has to specify in the
order regarding payment of maintenance either from
the date of appreciation or from the date of order if
the court chooses to grant maintenance from the
date of the order, then the court has to specify
reasons, otherwise, the order becomes perverse.
19. The next decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in AIR
1971 Supreme Court 234 between Dr
Kulbhushan Kunwar Vs Smt.Rajkumari and
others, in this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed the factor which would be taken into
consideration at the time of awarding maintenance
amount, and held that, the quantum of maintenance
depends upon a gathering.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
20. The learned counsel for the respondent has
also relied on the decisions, the first decision which
is relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is
reported in AIR 1975 SC 83 between Bhagwan
Dutt Vs Kamaladevi and another, in this case
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held
that, the magistrate has to find out as to what
is required by the wife to maintain a standard
of living which is neither luxurious nor
penurious, but is modestly consistent with the
status of the family. The needs and
requirements of the wife for such moderate
living can be fairly determined, only if her
separate Income, also taken into consideration
th earnings of the husband his commitments.
21. The next decision on which the respondent
counsel places his reliance is reported in 2001(3)
Civil,L.J 734 between Raghubir Yadav Vs
Smt.Purnima Kharga(Yadav), in this case the
Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that,
the Court required to strike a balance so that
spouses can live with dignity according to
special status, the order should not be a
windfall for one party and harsh penalty for the
other.
22. The next decision which is relied upon by
the respondent is reported in AIR 1984 Delhi 324
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
between Dev Dutt Singh Vs Smt.Rajni Gandhi,
in this case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held
that, the maintenance has to be fixed according
to the standing of the parties, their wealth and
the environment to which they in their married
state have been accustomed.
23. The next decision on which the learned
counsel for respondent places his reliance is reported
in AIR 2004 DELHI 442 between S.S.Bindra vs
Tarvinder Kaur, in this the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
has held that, after deducting compulsory
deductions from the salary of respondent, the
remaining income should be divided equally
between all the family members entitled to
maintenance, with one extra portion/share
being allotted to the earning spouse to meet
the extra expenses.
24. The next decision on which the learned
counsel for the respondent placed his reliance is
reported in AIR 2004 DELHI 323 between
Radhika Vs Vineet Rungta, in this case the
Hon'ble Delhi High court has held that,
generally in maintenance cases, the parties
disclose their actual income are extremely rare.
Experience has to be taken pertaining to the
claim for maintenance, and the quantum to be
granted, the safer and surer method to be
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
employed for coming to a realistic conclusion is
to look at the status of the parties, since whilst
incomes can be concealed, the status is
palpably evident to all concerned.
25. The next decision on which the learned
counsel for respondent placed his reliance is reported
in (1999(1) Civil LJ 228) between Gurvinder
Singh Vs Harjit Kuar, this case, the Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that, no set
formula can be laid for fixing the amount of
maintenance, it has, in very nature of things, to
depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. Some scope for leverage can however be
always there. Court has to consider the status
of the parties, their respective needs, capacity
of the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance
and though he is obliged under the law and
statutory but involuntary payments and
deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed
should be such as she can live in comfort
considering her status and mode of life she was
used to when she lived with her husband and
also that she does not feel handicapped in the
prosecution of her case.
26. The next decision on which the learned
counsel for the respondent placed his reliance is
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
reported in 1971 Legal Eagle 273 between
Chander Parkash Vs Prem Lata, in this case, the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that, the income
of wife certainly an important factor to decide
the question, whether or not, she has any
income of her own, sufficient to maintain
herself at part with the social status of the
family.
27. The decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and respondent are aptly
applicable to the case at hand. The petitioner has
agricultural land in her name but she cannot
personally cultivate the land. Further, she is required
to bear medical expenses, which means that she
requires some sort of financial assistance from the
respondent. Therefore, am of the opinion that the
maintenance awarded by the court in Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition No. 34/2010 is not sufficient
to lead a happy and respectable life. Because the
prices of essential items are rising, the petitioner
could not live on the meagres amount awarded by
the court. As such, the maintenance awarded by the
court is required to be enhanced, keeping in mind
the present lifestyles of the petitioner and
respondent.
28. The petitioner owns agricultural land in her
own name, but that does not mean she has enough
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
resources to support herself because she is an
elderly lady who cannot perform agricultural
activities alone; she must rely on agricultural
labourers and pay them a salary.
29. The maintenance that was granted to her
was sufficient for her livelihood for some period
thereafter, but the prices of essential items have
gone up, the government changed its policy
regarding exports and imports, the prices of
medicines have gone up, and the medical facilities
are also not affordable. Under such circumstances,
the Court cannot stick to the earlier maintenance and
has to take into consideration the living styles of the
petitioner and respondent as per the pension
document furnished by the petitioner. As per Ex.P22,
the monthly maintenance of the petitioner is Rs.
48,774/- Apart from that, the respondent got
retirement benefits of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also
owned house properties and agricultural land in his
own name. Also, she divorced the respondent. Under
such circumstances, the court has to enhance the
maintenance by considering the prices of essential
items and the present living style and medical
facilities. The petitioner has provided the medical
bills, medical prescriptions, and other documents
that show that she has paid money for treatment
that cannot be denied as falsely concocted
documents. As per the rulings submitted by the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
petitioner, there is no entrance for the Court to grant
maintenance up to 25% of the net income of the
respondent, The court can grant maintenance of Rs.
48,774 based on the oral and documentary evidence
and the pension benefit; the petitioner has already
received Rs. 7,500 per month from the respondent.
In the court proposes to grant maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month, that would be a sufficient
and justifiable quantum of maintenance, because the
monthly rent of the house is Rs. 3,500/-, the LPG
gas price is Rs. 1000/-, the electric charges may be
Rs. 500/- per month, and she has to pay water
charges and medical treatment expenses. All these
expenses have to be borne by the petitioner from the
income of the respondent, Therefore, the petitioner
is entitled to maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per
month, the respondent has not paid the maintenance
since the date of this petition. With the above-
mentioned reasons and discussions, I am of the
opinion that the maintenance awarded by the Court,
namely Rs. 7,500/-, is insufficient for the petitioner
to live happily for the rest of her life, and thus the
petitioner requires some additional financial
assistance from the respondent to live happily for the
rest of her life, accordingly I answer point No.1
and 2 are in the affirmative, point No.3 in the
partly affirmative.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
30. POINT NO.4: For the above-mentioned
reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the
following:
:: ORDER ::
The petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby partly
allowed.
The respondent is hereby directed to pay
enhanced maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per
month from the date of petition till she dis-
entitled to claim maintenance.
The earlier maintenance paid by the
respondent during this petition is to be
setup in the setup in the enhanced
maintenance.
The Office is directed to supply a free copy
of this order to the petitioner."
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision
petition in Crl.R.P.No.10007/2023, which also came to be
dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.11.2023 holding as
under:
"The revision petitioner being the original
respondent before the Trial Court has filed this
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
Revision Petition praying to set aside the order
passed by the learned Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar
in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 149/2015 dated
16.01.2023 by allowing the Revision Petition on the
following grounds:
1) The impugned order passed by the trial
court is not maintainable under law.
2) Eventhough the respondent has failed to
prove her case before the trail court the trial court
has passed the order directing the petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent
which is liable to be dismissed.
3) The opinion expressed by the trial court on
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
respondent is contrary to law.
4) The petitioner has proved the well financial
condition of the respondent by producing cogent
documents i.e, lending loan and income from the
agricultural lands, but the trail court has not taken
into consideration this aspect and passed the order
which is contrary to the law and the trial court also
has not considered the Ex.R.1 and the contents of
Ex.R.15.
5) The petitioner is leading retirement life and
he is getting lessor income which he got at the time
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
of earlier Crl. Mis.Ptn. No.34/2010 filed by the
respondent, facts being this the order of the trial
court enhancing the compensation amount of
Rs.20,000/- from Rs.7,500/- is not correct and
liable to be dismissed. Further the trail court again
passed the order basing on the same documents
which was considered in the earlier C.Mis.34/2010
which is not maintainable under law.
6) The respondent has not produced any
documents for her additional expenditure, but the
trial court has passed the order by considering the
oral evidence of the respondent which is not
maintainable under law.
7) The petitioner is leading retirement life and
he has to look after his old aged parents and has
responsibility to repay the debt but the trial court
has not considered these aspects and passed the
order which is not maintainable under law.
8) The petitioner is aged and he is suffering
from high blood pressure, diabetes and other
diseases and he has to take treatment regularly.
Further he has not given his house on rent as
contended by the respondent and he is not getting
any rent. The house which was stated by the
respondent in her earlier petition is in the name of
petitioner's first wife and after her demise as her
son is minor hence it came in the name of the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
petitioner at present it is in the name of his fist
wife's son. Thus the petitioner is not the owner of
the house.
9) The petitioner is elder one amongst 9
children of his parents and he has the responsibility
to look after the affairs of 5 sisters and his old aged
parents other than that two sisters who are widows
and their children. He has no agricultural land and
the land is in possession of this brother and he is
taking the yields of the same.
Viewing from any angle, the impugned Order
passed by the trial court is opposed to law, facts
and probabilities of the case.
On the above and among other grounds, the
revision petitioner prays to set aside the order
passed by the trial court by allowing the present
revision petition.
For the sake of convenience, the parties
herein are referred with the original ranks occupied
by them before the trial Court.
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioner
are as under:
The petitioner is a destitute lady who married
the respondent, but their marriage was later
dissolved by a court decree, and no children were
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
born to them out of wedlock. The respondent
worked as a lecturer an aided private college before
retiring in 2019. He has a son from his first wife and
she died in an accident in 2004. The petitioner is
suffering from age related ailments she cannot do
any work to earn income and she depends on the
pension amount of the respondent. The earlier
maintenance granted by the court of Rs.7,500/- is
not sufficient to lead her life because the prices of
essential items have gone high and she has to pay
the house rent of Rs.3,500/- per month. She also
needs money for her monthly medical treatment
and the purchase of medicines. Though she has
agricultural land in her name, she cannot cultivate it
personally because her physical condition does not
permit her to do hard labor. Therefore she filed this
petition to seek the enhancement of the earlier
maintenance amount of Rs.7,500/- to Rs.70,000/-.
Hence, this petition.
3. After service of notice, the respondent has
appeared through his counsel and filed objections.
The respondent has objected for passing of an order
for the enhancement of maintenance that was
granted by the court in the earlier petition because
the petitioner had challenged the earlier
maintenance order before the Hon'ble Fast Track
Court, but the same was rejected and confirmed the
order of the trial court. Further contends that the
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
petitioner has a sufficient source of Income from
agriculture and her family is financially sound, apart
from that she obtained an amount of Rs 3,50,000/-
in the cheque bounce case, apart from that the
petitioner has been living a lavish lifestyle with the
earlier maintenance amount and she falsely stated
before the court that she is suffering from age
related ailments when in fact, she is a hale and
healthy woman, she can earn an income and she
has produced fake medical bills to get enhanced
maintenance. The respondent is a senior citizen he
has spent a significant amount of money on his
son's wedding he has to care for his elderly mother
and he retired from a private college. Fifty percent
of his salary has gone to government deductions
and other expenses and the pension amount he
received from the college is in sufficient to lead a
happy life and to pay his medical expenses. Further
the petitioner has falsely stated in her petition that
after passing maintenance in the earlier case,
immediately the prices of essential items increased
by 40 to 50 percent. The petitioner has stated false
facts before the court therefore with the above
mentioned reasons prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. In support of her case, the petitioner
examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 23
documents as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.23 and closed her
side. On the other hand the respondent has got
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1
to Ex.R.40 documents.
5. After hearing the arguments of both sides
the trial Court was pleased to allow the petition and
directed the respondent to pay enhanced
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the
date of petition till she dis-entitled to claim
maintenance. With these grounds, he prays to set
aside the order passed by the trial Court.
6. Heard the arguments of both sides and
perused the records.
7. The points that would arise for my
consideration are as under:
:: POINTS::
i) Whether the revision petitioner proves
that, the order passed by the lower Court is
illegal, improper and untenable in Law and
needs to be interfere ?
ii) What order?
8. My findings to the above points are as
under:
Point No. 1: In the Negative.
Point No. 2: As per final order for the following
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
:: REASONS::
9. Point No. 1: The revision petitioner has
filed this petition against the order passed by the
learned Pri.Civil.Judge and JMFC Sagar in
Cri.Mis.Petition No.149/2015 dated 16.01.2023
wherein the trial court has enhanced monthly
maintenance of the petitioner of Rs.20,000/- per
month from the date of petition till she dis-entitled to
claim maintenance.
10. The petitioner has filed present petition
U/Sec.127 of Cr.P.C. praying to enhance her
maintenance which was already granted in earlier
criminal miscellaneous petition which is not in
dispute between the parties. Wherein the present
petition is filed by the petitioner in the year 2015
U/Sec.127 of Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of
maintenance from the respondent and she has
approached for enhancement of maintenance of
Rs.70,000/-, but the trial court has granted only
Rs.20,000/- per month. Further the said amount was
enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.20,000/-. Therefore
as against the said order the respondent/ husband
has preferred present criminal revision petition
stating that now he is retired person and he is
getting only pension and other than the said pension
he has no other Income to him.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
11. Further during the course of arguments the
learned counsel for the petitioner herein has filed
written synopsis.
12. Wherein the petitioner herself has been
examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. Ex.P.1 is the salary slip of the
respondent for the month December 2014, Ex.P.2 is
the certified copy of Judgment passed in MC
No.74/2012 of Prl.Civil.Judge Senior Division
Mandya, Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of Orders passed
in Crl.Mis.Ptn No.34/2010 of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC
Sagar, Ex.P.4 is the Salary certificate of the
respondent for the month of November 2009, Ex.P.5
is the House property tax assessment extract, Ex.P.6
is the certified copy of property tax assessment
extract, Ex.P.7 is the Record of Rights, Ex.P.8 is the
wedding card. Ex.P.9 is the Medical certificate given
by Vigneshwar Hospital, Sagar, Ex.P.10 to 12 are the
Medical prescriptions. Ex.P.13 is the Medical
certificate given by Nagaraj Nuro Clinic Shivamogga,
Ex.P.14 & 15 are the Medicine prescriptions, Ex.P.16
are the Medicine purchase bills, Ex.P.17 is the Rent
agreement, Ex.P.18 is the Medicine prescription,
Ex.P.19 is the Medicine purchase bills (48 bills),
Ex.P.20 is the certified copy or deposition of the
respondent in Crl.Mis.No.34/2010, Ex.P.21 is the
pension payment order, Ex.P.22 is the pension Slip
and ExP.23 is the Crop declaration certificate. The
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
petitioner in order to prove the income of the
respondent as on the date of filing of the criminal
mis petition she relied on Ex.P.1 salary slip of the
respondent for the month of December 2014. On
perusal of Ex.P.1 it is the salary slip of the
respondent which reveals that his monthly net salary
was Rs.83,186/-. Further to prove the relationship of
the petitioner and the respondent that they are not
in cordiality she relied on Ex.P.2 certified copy of the
petition filed by her in M.C.74/2012 U/Sec.13 (i) of
Hindu Marriage act. Hence, the relationship between
the parties is not cordial and therefore the
respondent has filed the said M.C. petition against
the petitioner herein. Further the petitioner in order
to prove that earlier she was granted maintenance
by the respondent, she relied on Ex.P.3 the certified
copy of the orders passed in Crl.Mis.No.34/2010
which reveals that both the petitioner and the
respondent have lead their oral and documentary
evidence and after hearing the matter on merits, the
learned Magistrate has allowed the petition filed by
the petitioner U/Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the
respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per
month to the petitioner from the date of petition till
her life time or till she gets second marriage
whichever is earlier. The said order was passed on
23.03.2013. Thereafter in view of change of
circumstances in the life of the petitioner as due to
her age aspects her health issues are getting
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
detoriated in this regard she has taken treatment
and apart from that she also residing in a rented
house and she has to pay rent and she has to
purchase the medicines every month to prove the
same she relied on Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.19. On perusal of
Ex.P.17 it is rent agreement between the house for
which the petitioner is residing on monthly rent of
Rs.3,500/- and she has paid an advance amount of
Rs.25,000/-. The said rent period was extended up
to 31.05.2015 and apart from that the rent was
enhanced to Rs.3,600/- per month. Further the
petitioner to prove the income of the respondent as
on the date of filing of the present petition for
enhancement of the maintenance she relied on
Ex.P.21 pension payment order and Ex.P.22 pension
slip which reveals that net salary of the respondent
was Rs.1.14/102/- and the respondent is drawing a
monthly pension of Rs.48,774/-. Hence on going
through the Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 they reveal that
respondent is getting pension of Rs.48,774/- and
also apart from that at the time of his retirement he
might have got retirement funds from the college
where he was working. Further the trial court also
has discussed regarding the residential house and
other agricultural lands possessed by the respondent
and also in the name of his mother. Thus the trial
court by considering Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 and also
residential house and agricultural lands the trial court
come to the conclusion that the respondent having
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
sufficient means to pay enhanced maintenance that
would be awarded by the court.
13. Further the petitioner in order to prove her
health issues, she got marked Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.16,
Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 which reveals that the petitioner
was under treatment due to her health issues and
also she has placed Ex.P.18 medical prescriptions
and Ex.P.19 medical purchase bills (48 bills) wherein
the said documents reveal that the petitioner is
under constant treatment and she has to buy
medicines in time prescribed by the Doctor. Apart
from that the petitioner has proved that she is
staying in a rented house. Hence as the petitioner is
residing in a rented house and as her health issues
not in good condition as she is under constant
treatment she requires some amount from the
respondent due to the present days. Wherein the
earlier order was passed in the year 2010 wherein in
the said petition only Rs.7,500/- was granted. The
said amount is taken into consideration to lead the
life of the petitioner at present days, it is definitely
impossible to lead her life in a rented house and also
to look after her health issues in such a meager
amount.
14. In the instant case no doubt the petitioner
has produced the Ex.P.21 and Ex.P.22 which reveals
the monthly income of the respondent. Whereas the
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
respondent as per Ex.P.22 pension slip he is drawing
a monthly pension of Rs.48,774). Therefore under
such circumstances it can be said that earlier
maintenance awarded by the trial court of Rs.7.500/-
is insufficient for the petitioner to lead a happy life
for the rest of her life.
15. On the other hand in support of the
respondent's case the respondent himself has been
examined as RW.1 and also got marked 40
documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.40. Ex.R.1 is the
certified copy of complaint in certified copy of CC
No.157/2016, Ex.R.2 is the certified copy of demand
register extract, Ex.R.3 is the certified copy of pliant
presented in OS No. 190/2012, Ex.R.4 to Ex.R.8 are
the Record of rights, Ex.R.9 to Ex.R.11 are the
Insurance policy bonds, Ex.R.12 to Ex.R.14 are the
Insurance premium payment receipts, Ex.R.15 is the
certified copy of sworn statement of the petitioner in
PCR No.174/2015, Ex.R.16 is the certified copy of
judgment passed in Crl. Rev.Ptn No.126/2013,
Ex.R.17 is the MRI Scan report, Ex.R.18 is the
Medicine prescription, Ex.R.19 is the MRI Scan
requisition, Ex.R.20 is the Medicine prescription.
Ex.R.21 is the Medicine purchase bill, Ex.R.22 is the
certified copy of deposition of petitioner in CC
No.157/2016, Ex.R.23 is the Relieving letter issued
by PES College, Mandya, Ex.R.24 is the Pay slip of
respondent for the month of January 2019, Ex.R.25
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
is the AG Slip, Ex.R.26 to Ex.R.39 are the Insurance
premium payment receipts and Ex.R.40 is the Record
of Right.
16. On going through the documents relied by
the respondents some of the documents in respect of
the cases pending between the parties and also
some of the documents are in respect of properties.
Further the respondent also has placed some medical
reports prescriptions and purchase of medicines to
prove his health condition. The trial court by
considering the oral and documentary evidence of
both the parties has come to conclusion that the
petitioner is entitled for enhancement of
maintenance amount due to the present days to lead
a happy life by the petitioner.
17. Apart from that the learned counsel for the
respondent has relied on some of the decisions cited
by the trial court in its Judgment in support of his
case the trial court has considered the decisions /
citations relied by both the parties and discussed
regarding the facts and circumstances comparing the
case of the parties therein to the present parties.
Finally the trial court held that the decision relied by
the learned counsel for the respondent are not
applicable to the present case on the facts and
circumstances and with due respect to them.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
18. Further the petitioner also has placed
Ex.P.23 crop declaration certificate showing that
though she owns agricultural lands in her own name
but she cannot do agricultural work in the said land
due to her health issues and also financial crises.
Further on perusal of Ex.P.22 it is crop declaration
certificate Issued by the Deputy Tahsildar stating
that the land l.e., standing in the name of the
petitioner is a barren land and no crops can be grown
in the said land.
19. In the present case as the respondent has
denied the case of the petitioner as false in this
regard the respondent who has been examined as
RW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for
the petitioner. Wherein in his cross examination he
has clearly admitted that his two brothers are
government employees and his two sisters are living
with him in a separate house as their parents are
aged. Further he admits that his son works in a
private company and gets a salary of Rs.15,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- per month. Further he also admits that
price of essential items have been increased from the
year 2010 to 2015. Further he has also admitted that
he would receive a retirement benefit of
Rs.10,00,000/-. Further he admitted that he receives
a monthly pension of Rs.48,774/- and his last salary
was Rs.1,91,000/-. Further he also has produced
Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.40, among these documents Ex.R.4 is
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
the RTC of agricultural land jointly standing in the
name of the petitioner and her brother to an extent
of 27 guntas. Ex.R.5 is the another RTC of
agricultural land standing in the name of petitioner to
an extent 1 acre 18 guntas. Ex.R.6 is the another
RTC standing in the name of petitioner to an extent
of 38 guntas, Ex.R.9 is the Mediclaim insurance
policy of the petitioner for Rs.1,00,000/- and the
policy was already lapsed on 22.02.2017. Further
Ex.R.9 is the mediclalm Insurance policy bonds and
sum assured to the petitioner is Rs.1,00,000/-. The
said policy also lapsed on 22.02.2016.
20. Further the respondent has produced some
medical bills pertaining to his health issues l.e.,
Ex.R.17 the MRI scan report of the respondent which
reveals that the respondent is suffering from cervical
spondylosis. Further Ex.R.23 is the letter issued by
the college authorities where the respondent was
working stating that the respondent would retire
from his service on 31.05.2019. Ex.R.24 is the salary
slip for January 2019 and his net salary was
Rs.1,72,420/-. Ex.R.25 is the A.G. slip wherein it is
mentioned that respondent is getting retirement
benefit of Rs.10,00,000/-. Further Ex.R.26 to
Ex.R.39 are LIC loan payment receipts and Ex.R.40
is the copy of record of rights of agricultural land
standing in the petitioner's name.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
21. Apart from that during the course of
arguments the learned counsel for the respondent
has filed memo with medical reports of the petitioner
i..e, medical treatment book issued by Nagaraj
Neuro Clinic, 3 medical prescriptions and one medical
lab report. Wherein the said documents are of the
year 2023. Hence, on going through the said medical
documents relied by the petitioner they reveal that
presently she is also under treatment.
22. The trial court by considering the oral and
documentary evidence relied by both the parties it
has discussed in detail and elaborately has come to
conclusion that considering life of the petitioner that
she is living in a rented house and she is facing
health issues and she requires some amount to lead
a happy life in the society has enhanced the
maintenance and granted Rs.20,000/- per month
directing the respondent to pay the said amount as
per the order of the trial court. Thus the trial court
by considering the oral and documentary evidence
relied by the parties and considering the income of
the respondent as on the date of filing of the
maintenance petition for enhancement has discussed
in detail which requires no interference of this court.
Hence, the appellant has not made out grounds for
this court to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the trial court. Hence, answered point
No.1 in the Negative.
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
23. Point No. 2 : In view of my findings to
Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER::
The Criminal Revision Petition filed
by the revision petitioner U/Sec.397 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
The impugned order passed by the
Prl.Civil.Judge and JMFC, Sagar in
Crl.Mis.No.149/2015 dated 26-01-2023 is
hereby confirmed.
send the TCR to the trial court along
with the copy of this order forthwith
5. Upon re-consideration, re-appreciation and re-
evaluation of the entire material on record, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned orders passed by the trial
Court and the revisional Court do not suffer from any illegality
or infirmity nor can the same said to have occasioned failure of
justice warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4573
6. However, in order to secure the end of justice, I
deem it just and appropriate to modify the impugned order and
direct the petitioner to pay maintenance at a sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of the
order of the trial Court i.e. 16.01.2023 onwards instead of from
the date of the petition as directed by the trial Court.
7. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the petition
stands disposed of.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM
