(1.) J. C. S. Rawat 1. This criminal revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30-11-2004 passed by the Family Court Judge/c. J. M. , U. S. Nagar in Suit No. 208/2003 Amita Vs. Ravindra Kumar, whereby the Ravindra Kumar-husband was directed to pay the main tenance to his wife @ Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of filing of appli cation under section 125 Cr. RC.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the revisionist- Amita filed an applica tion before the Family Court under sec tion 125 Cr. RC. against her husband-Ravindra Kumar for seeking maintenance of Rs. 3000/- per month. It was alleged in the application that the marriage was solemnized in between the respondent No. 2- Ravindra Kumar and the revision-ist-Amita in the year 1992 according to Hindu rites and customs. After the mar riage, the respondent no. 1 and his fam ily members started harassing the revi sionist in connection with the dowry de mand. When the dowry demand was not fulfilled, she was subjected to cru elty by the respondent No. 1 and his fam ily members. Thereafter, she was turned out from the house. The respondent no. 1 did not take her back to her matrimo nial house and did not pay any mainte nance allowance. As such, the respond ent no. 1 had neglected to maintain his wife. It was further alleged that the re spondent no. 1 is an employee in the Nagar Palika, Rudrapur and he is earn ing Rs. 5000/- p. m. Apart this, he is an electric mechanic and in this way he earns Rs. 4000/- p. m. from his profes sion. It was further alleged that the re visionist has no means to earn her live lihood. The respondent-husband denied the allegations made in the application filed under section 125 Cr. RC. The re spondent-husband has further alleged that he is ready to take her back to his house, but his wife is not ready to come and as such the application for maintenance may be rejected. The parties were directed to adduce their evidence in sup port of their evidence. After appreciation of evidence on record, the Family Court allowed the application under section 125 Cr. RC. and the respondent-husband was directed to pay maintenance to his wife @ Rs. 1000/- p. m. from the date of filing of application for maintenance i. e. 20-12-2003. Feeling by the order passed by th
(3.) IT is not disputed that the re spondent-husband has sufficient means to maintain his wife and the revisionist-wife is unable to maintain herself. The respondent-husband had neglected to maintain his wife. He is not maintain ing his wife by providing the mainte nance. The revisionist-wife has preferred this revision on the point of enhance ment of the maintenance. The trial court had held that the respondent-husband is earning a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as salary. Therefore, it would be just and proper to award one-third (l/3rd) of the said amount as maintenance. Thus, the trial court would have awarded a sum of Rs. 1600/- per month as maintenance to the wife. The prayer for enhancement of the maintenance is just and proper. Therefore, the revision is liable to be allowed.