UMAMAHESWARI Vs. ARUNKUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision Case is filed by the mother as against her two sons for the relief of enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner. Considering the scope of the petition in M.P.No.37 of 2016 in M.C.No.566 of 2007, by the order dated 31.08.2017 the learned VIth Additional Family Court Judge at Chennai partly allowed the petition filed by the revision petitioner and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as additional maintenance, apart from Rs.15,000/- and the said amount shall be paid on or before the 5th day of every English calendar month. Feeling aggrieved over the order passed in M.P.No.37/2016 the instant revision is filed by the petitioner to set-aside the order passed therein.

(2.) This is a case of chequered history. The petitioner is the mother of the respondents herein and in the year 2007, she filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.566 of 2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the said petition the petitioner sought for a direction to direct the respondents to pay a monthly allowance of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance. Further, in the said petition the petitioner listed three items of property and other source of income of the respondents and also adduced reasons as to how she is entitled to claim the maintenance amount as prayed for. However, pending the aforesaid maintenance petition, the revision petitioner preferred another miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.275 of 2009 for interim maintenance and by the order dated 01.04.2010, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner as interim maintenance. However, as the amount a sum of Rs.2,000/- ordered as interim maintenance was in adequate, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD)No.2375 of 2010 before this Court and by the order dated 07.07.2014 the amount of interim maintenance was enhanced to a sum of Rs.7,500/-.

(3.) Subsequently, as the revision petitioner got documentary evidence to prove the income of the respondents is very high, she field another application in M.P.No.37 of 2016 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. It is the admitted case of the revision petitioner that both the petitions filed under Sections 125 and 127 of Cr.P.C. were heard together but order was passed only in the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and no order was passed in M.P.No.37 of 2016. But without considering these facts the application for enhancement of interim maintenance in M.P.No.37 of 2016 was only partly allowed.