Mohd. Abdul Muneem vs Smt. Shahanaz Sultana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4410 Tel

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

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

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

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