SHAHEEN KHANAM Vs. MOHD. KHAJA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has been served and remains unrepresented. There is a delay of 49 days in filling the present petition. For the reasons stated, the delay is condoned. I.A. No. 3 of 2012 is taken on record and allowed. The petitioners are the wife and children of the respondent. Apparently, petitioner 1 is estranged from her husband and is living apart and therefore, had claimed maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). The same having been allowed, the petitioners had sought for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of the Cr. P.C. The same has been allowed where there has been a partial enhancement from Rs. 1,500/- payable to the petitioner 1 to Rs. 1,700/- and Rs. 500/- payable to each of the petitioners 2 to 5 has been enhanced to Rs. 700/-. The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the partial enhancement and would submit that it is hardly sufficient to survive and therefore, seek further enhancement.

(2.) It is noticed that the Court below has taken account of the increase in cost of living and has also addressed the income of the respondent, but has yet thought it fit to only enhance the sum as aforesaid, as a matter of prudence. The salary Certificate of the respondent that is produced after accounting for the deductions of Rs. 4,673/-, the petitioner has a take home pay packet of at least Rs. 17,000/-. Therefore, it is inexplicable that the Court has thought it fit to award only a partial enhancement. The petitioners are five in number and there is no material on record to indicate that the respondent requires the said major portion of his salary to maintain any others or is required for any other purpose. Therefore, the respondent as a husband and father, is obliged to maintain the petitioners till such time that they are self-sufficient. Notwithstanding that petitioner 2 is a major, she is still undergoing her education and therefore, till such time she is able to stand on her own legs, she would have to be maintained. Hence, going by the increasing cost of living, the Court below having felt that since 2008, there is no major change in circumstance to award a larger amount of maintenance, is a dim view of the actual cost of living and it was appropriate if the Court had balanced the need of the petitioners and the affordability of the petitioner in a better manner.